Enicospilus formosensis (Uchida, 1928)

Shimizu, So, Broad, Gavin R. & Maeto, Kaoru, 2020, Integrative taxonomy and analysis of species richness patterns of nocturnal Darwin wasps of the genus Enicospilus Stephens (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ophioninae) in Japan, ZooKeys 990, pp. 1-144 : 1

Enicospilus formosensis (Uchida, 1928) Figure 18

Henicospilus formosensis Uchida, 1928: 223; HT ♀ from Taiwan, SEHU, examined.

Enicospilus saepis Chiu, 1954: 77; HT ♀ from Japan, TARI, examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 424).

Enicospilus vacuus Gauld and Mitchell, 1981: 453; HT ♀ from Okinawa, EMUS, examined; syn. nov.

Specimens examined.

Total of 55 specimens (19♀♀35♂♂ and 1 unsexed): Brunei (1♂), India (1 unsexed), Japan (18♀♀32♂♂), Laos (1♂), Taiwan (1♀), unknown (1♂).

Type series: HT ♀ of Henicospilus formosensis Uchida, 1928, Baibara [= Meiyuan], TAIWAN, 15.VI.1926, Y. Saito & Kikuchi leg. (SEHU); HT ♀ of Enicospilus vacuus Gauld & Mitchell, 1981, Chizuka, Okinawa, Ryûkyûs, JAPAN, VII-IX, G.E. Bohart & C.L. Harnage leg. (EMUS); PT ♀ of E. vacuus , same data and repository as HT; HT ♀ of Enicospilus saepis Chiu, 1954, Nara, Kinki, JAPAN, 17.VIII.1918, J. Sonan leg. (TARI).

Distribution.

Eastern Palaearctic and Oriental regions ( Yu et al. 2016).

Newly recorded from Laos and Malaysia.

JAPAN: [ Kantô-Kôshin] Tôkyô *; [ Tôkai] Mie*; [Kinki] Ōsaka ( Chiu 1954; present study), Nara ( Chiu 1954; Shimizu 2020; present study), and Wakayama*; [ Chûgoku] Hiroshima ( Konishi and Nakamura 2005, 2010; present study) and Yamaguchi*; [Shikoku] Ehime ( Konishi and Yamamoto 2000; present study) and Kôchi *; [ Kyûshû] Fukuoka*, Saga ( Chiu 1954; present study), Nagasaki*, Kumamoto ( Chiu 1954; present study), and Kagoshima*; [ Ryûkyûs] Kagoshima* and Okinawa ( Gauld and Mitchell 1981; present study). *New records.

Bionomics.

Unknown.

Differential diagnosis.

This species is easily distinguishable by the wide face (Fig. 18B ), unique conspicuous long line of setae of fore wing discosubmarginal cell (Fig. 18F ), shape of central sclerite of fore wing fenestra (Fig. 18F ), quadrate scutellum, and large size.

Remarks.

Gauld and Mitchell (1981) had separated E. formosensis and E. vacuus based on differences of value of CI. However, the CI of these ‘species’ are continuous and no other morphological differences could be recognised. Tang (1990) also suggested that these names represented the same species. Hence, E. vacuus is newly synonymised under E. formosensis in the present paper.

Figures

Figure 18. Enicospilus formosensis (Uchida, 1928) ♀ from Japan A habitus B head, frontal view C head, dorsal view D head, lateral view E mesosoma, lateral view F central part of fore wing.