Clinocentrus amiri Rakhshani & Farahani
Derafshan, Hossein Ali, Rakhshani, Ehsan, Farahani, Samira, Ghafouri Moghaddam, Mostafa & van Achterberg, Cornelis, 2020, The genus Clinocentrus Haliday (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Rogadinae) in Iran, with the description of a new species, Journal of Natural History 54 (19 - 20), pp. 1223-1241: 1226-1230
treatment provided by
|Clinocentrus amiri Rakhshani & Farahani|
HOLOTYPE: ♀, IRAN: Sistan-o Baluchestan province , Zabol-Hamoon wetlands (31° 09ʹ23.7”N, 61°23ʹ57.9”E, 450 m), 14.x.2015, light trap, Nim 128, H. A. Derafshan leg. ( DPPZ) GoogleMaps . PARATYPES: 3♀, 1♂, same data as holotype ( DPPZ); 5♀, 1♂, same locality data, 28 GoogleMaps .v GoogleMaps .2015, light trap, Nim 99 (3♀: ZISP, 2♀, 1♂: DPPZ); 2♀, 1♂, same data as holotype, but 17 GoogleMaps .x GoogleMaps .2015, Nim 135 ( DPPZ); 2♀, same data as holotype, but 21 GoogleMaps .x GoogleMaps .2015, Nim 139 ( DPPZ); ♀, 1♂, same data as holotype, but 25 GoogleMaps .x GoogleMaps .2015, Nim 143 ( DPPZ); ♀, same data as holotype, but 25 GoogleMaps .x GoogleMaps .2015, Nim 144 ( DPPZ); 1♀, 2♂♂, IRAN: Sistan-o Baluchestan province, Zabol-Nimrooz (31°05ʹ02”N, 61°26ʹ07”E, 461 m), 18 GoogleMaps .v GoogleMaps .2016, light trap, Nim 212, H. A GoogleMaps . Derafshan leg. ( ZISP); 2♀, same data as holotype, but 510 m, 27 GoogleMaps .v GoogleMaps .2016 ( RMNH); 2♀, 1♂, same data as holotype, 22 GoogleMaps .x GoogleMaps .2015, swept ( RMNH).
Clinocentrus amiri sp. nov. is similar to C. kozlovi Belokobylskij, 1995 in sharing the large eyes ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (a–c)), the rounded hypoclypeal depression ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (b)) and the short marginal cell of forewing ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (f)). Clinocentrus amiri sp. nov. can be separated from C. kozlovi by its large ocelli (OD = POL in Clinocentrus amiri sp. nov. – Figure 2 View Figure 2 (a), versus 0.56 in C. kozlovi ), separated dorsal carinae on 1st metasomal tergite – Figure 3 View Figure 3 (b) (joined near middle of tergite in C. kozlovi ), shorter metasomal tergite 2 (1.3 times 3rd metasomal tergite in Clinocentrus amiri sp. nov. – Figure 3 View Figure 3 (c), versus 1.5 times 3rd metasomal tergite in C. kozlovi ) and shorter vein 3-SR of forewing (vein 2-SR 1.7–2.6 times vein 3-SR in Clinocentrus amiri sp. nov. – Figure 2 View Figure 2 (f), versus 1.3 in C. kozlovi ).
Female, length of body 3.1 mm, length of forewing 2.4 mm.
Head twice as wide as its median length in dorsal view ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (a)), roundly contracted behind eyes. Transverse diameter of eye 2.5 times longer than temple in dorsal view. Eyes protuberant. Ocelli large, OOL and POL equal to OD. Occipital carina not joined to hypostomal carina. Face ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (b)) width 1.8 times greater than its height. Tentorial index (tentorio-ocular line/intertentorial line) 0.40. Hypoclypeal depression almost round, its width twice distance of depression from eye. Eye 1.3 times as high as broad in lateral view ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (c)). Antenna about as long as body, 26-segmented. First flagellar segment 2.7 times as long as wide, 1.3 times as long as 2nd flagellar segment. Penultimate flagellar segment twice as long as wide ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (g)).
Length of mesosoma 1.6 times its height ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (d)). Precoxal sulcus distinct, strongly rugose, situated in the medial part of mesopleuron, remainder of mesopleuron mostly smooth. In dorsal view ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (e)) notauli distinct and rugulose. Scutellar sulcus rugose, with distinct median carinae. Propodeum ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (a)) coarsely reticulate-rugose, without median carina.
Wings. ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (f)) Forewing marginal cell shortened; pterostigma 1.2 times longer than vein 1-R1, r:3-SR:SR1 as 6:5:34, SR1 curved, 2-R1 absent, 2nd submarginal cell small and trapeziform, its length 1.75 times its maximum width, 1.4 times shorter than maximum length of 1st subdiscal cell, 2-SR+M as long as r-m, 1-CU1 as long as cu-a. Hindwing: M + CU 1.3 times longer than 1-M. Vein cu-a weakly sclerotised.
Legs. ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (b, d)) Hind femur 4.8 times longer than wide. Hind tibia 1.2 times longer than hind tarsus. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.2 times length of basitarsus. Hind basitarsus 2.1 and 3.0 times longer than 2nd and 5th segments of tarsus.
First metasomal tergite with distinct protuberances subbasally and widened from base to apex, with 2 separate dorsal carinae; 1st metasomal tergite aciculo-rugose and setiferous, its length slightly less than its apical width; 2nd metasomal tergite 1.3 times longer than 3rd tergite, 1.2 times shorter than basal width; 2nd metasomal tergite anteriorly aciculorugose but weaker on posterior area, setiferous; 3rd metasomal tergite densely rugose and almost smooth distally, remaining tergites narrowly extending beyond 3rd metasomal tergite ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (c)). Ovipositor sheath ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (b)) 1.3 times longer than 1st metasomal tergite, with erect setae.
Body light reddish brown ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (d)). Antenna largely dark brown, but basally reddish. Palpi and legs light brown. Wing hyaline. Pterostigma dark brown with pale yellow base. Ovipositor sheath black apically.
( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (e)) Length of body 3.3 mm. Length of forewing 2.3 mm. Tergites tend to be reddish brown, otherwise similar to female.
Vein 2-SR of forewing 1.7–2.6 times longer than vein 3-SR; Antennae 24–27-segmented; pterostigma 1.15–1.55 times longer than vein 1-R1; 2nd metasomal tergite 1.1–1.4 times longer than 3rd tergite.
( Figure 8 View Figure 8 (a)) In the border of Eastern and Western Palaearctics ( Iran – Sistan-o Baluchestan province).
The types and available specimens are in pristine condition. Holotype and paratype are mounted on triangle cards ( Figure 3 View Figure 3 (d–e)). Additional specimens preserved both as mounted and unmounted in alcohol.
This new species is named after the prefix in the name of the first and second author’s sons [Amir-Ali, Amir-Mohammad, Amir-Mahdi; Amir-Hossein and Amir- Reza].
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.