Lomachaeta warneri Williams, 2019

Williams, Kevin A., Cambra, Roberto A., Bartholomay, Pedro R., Luz, David R., Quintero, Diomedes & Pitts, James P., 2019, Review of the genus Lomachaeta Mickel, 1936 (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae) with new species and sex associations, Zootaxa 4564 (1), pp. 101-136 : 131-134

Lomachaeta warneri Williams , sp. nov.

( Figs 36 , 40 )

Diagnosis. FEMALE. This species can be recognized by the following combination of characters: the body is predominantly orange-brown, except the antennae, legs, and T3–6 are somewhat darker brown; the mandible has a barely perceptible ventral lamella that does not interrupt the ventral mandibular contour; the erect dorsal brachyplumose setae of the whole body are mostly yellow-brown; the mesosoma is coarsely areolate and lacks appressed subparallel pale setae; the mesosoma is compact, with the thoracic dorsal length 0.85 × its width; the T2 disc is sparsely punctate with the intervals partly smooth and partly microreticulate; the T2 fringe is somewhat dense with slightly thickened silvery setae; and the S6 lateral carina is shallow, but distinct.

Description. FEMALE. Body length 2.5–3 mm. Coloration. Body reddish-orange except F2–10 dark brown; femora, tibiae, and tarsi largely brown; T2 apex and T3–5 brown; and T6 dark brown. Tibial spurs white. Erect dorsal brachyplumose setae entirely white to pale brown, many setae lighter at base; except T6 with setae predominantly brown. Mesonotum with few scattered subappressed simple white setae; fringes of T2–5 composed of subappressed white setae, those of T2 silvery, thicker than surrounding erect setae. Ventral and pleural setae white, except S6 setae largely brown. Head. Head width 1.1 × pronotal width. Frons, vertex and gena areolate, vertex with many intervals obliterated. Clypeus without distinct teeth or ridges. Genal carina extending anteriorly nearly to hypostomal carina. Mandible oblique, tapering, bidentate apically, with barely perceptible ventral lamella that does not interrupt ventral mandibular contour. Antennal scrobe without dorsal carina. Lengths of F1 and F2 each subequal to pedicel length. Mesosoma. Mesosoma compact; dorsal thoracic length 0.85 × width. Humeral carina distinct, angulate dorsally, not reaching epaulet. Mesosomal dorsum areolate; areolations clearly defined, not raised into tubercles; areolations slightly tighter anteriorly than posteriorly; dorsally with 12 areolations between pronotal spiracles. Pronotal and propodeal spiracles weakly swollen; lateral mesonotal tubercle weakly defined. Lateral propodeal face impunctate. Metasoma. T1 shape sub-sessile, mostly smooth. T2 slightly longer than wide. Disc of T2 with sparse punctures, intervals smooth. T3–5 and S2–5 with separated punctures, intervals shagreened. T6 convex. Incomplete lateral S6 carina shallow but distinct.

MALE. Unknown.

Material examined. Holotype, ♀, USA, Arizona, Coconino County, Hwy. 89A, 4.9 mi. [7.8 km] ESE of jct. 389, 36 o 55’20”N 112 o 15’10”W, 24.IV–25.V.2014, W.B. Warner, barrier pitfall with black cups ( CSCA, Figs 36 , 40 ) . Paratypes: USA: Arizona, Coconino County, Hwy. 89A, 4.9 mi. [7.8 km] ESE of jct. 389, 36 o 55’20”N 112 o 15’10”W, 29.VI–26.VII.2014, W.B. Warner, barrier pitfall with black cups (2♀: ASUT, FSCA) ; Utah, Washington County, Mills Rd. , 1.6 mi. [2.6 km] S I-15 exit 27; 37.2649 o N 113.3259 o W, 15.IV–3.VII.2015, barrier pitfall with black cups (1♀, CSCA) . Other Material. USA: Arizona, Pinal County, 4 mi. [6.4 km] W Stanfield , 12.IV.1963, G.I. Stage (1♀, EMUS) .

Distribution. Colorado Plateau in Arizona and Utah.

Etymology. Named in honor of William B. Warner, the collector of the holotype and many other important mutillid specimens.

Remarks. This female apparently belongs to the L. crocopinna species-group ( Williams & Pitts 2009) in having the ventral mandibular lamella obliterated and the pronotal and propodeal spiracles lowly produced. Within this apparent group, the thickened T2 fringe setae are unique. The specimen from Pinal County Arizona has the cuticle somewhat darker, the dorsal setae longer and darker, and the intervals of T2 with the microreticulations more distinct. Although these differences are not great enough to justify describing it as a distinct species at this point, they are enough to justify removing it from the paratype series.

Figures

FIGURES 33–36. Lomachaeta females; dorsal habitus. 33) L. hedera; 34) L. beadugrimi; 35) L. powelli; 36) L. warneri, sp. nov. Scale bar = 1 mm.

FIGURES 37–40. Lomachaeta females; lateral habitus. 37) L. hedera; 38) L. beadugrimi; 39) L. powelli; 40) L. warneri, sp. nov. Scale bar = 1 mm.