Phaeogenini Förster, 1869

Pos, Davide Dal, Claridge, Brandon, Diller, Erich, Noort, Simon Van & Giovanni, Filippo Di, 2023, Still counting: new records, nomenclatural notes, and three new species of Phaeogenini (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae) from the Afrotropical region, European Journal of Taxonomy 868, pp. 1-71 : 4-11

Key to the genera of Afrotropical Phaeogenini Förster, 1869

The key has been updated to include Aethecerus and Centeterichneumon , not considered in the previous key by Rousse et al. (2013). Even though Nesostenodontus belongs in the tribe Ichneumonini , the genus is also included here to facilitate the identification of the only species occurring in the Afrotropical region, N. mkomazi ( Rousse & van Noort, 2013) comb. nov.

1. Clypeus irregularly emarginate, with a median notch (A); mandibles unidentate (B); genae strongly swollen (A, B, C); gastrocoeli obsolete (C); propodeum lacking distinct carinae (C)........................ ............................................................................. Nesostenodontus Cushman, 1922 (Ichneumonini) – Clypeus either lenticular (e.g., Figs 4B , 21B , 23B ) or squared (a), never irregularly emarginated or with a median notch; mandibles either bidentate (b) or unidentate ( Figs 11C , 14B ); genae various, usually not as strongly inflated (e.g., Figs 6C , 19A , 25A ); gastrocoeli and thyridia various, from obsolete ( Fig. 14C ) to distinctly present (c, Fig. 26B ); propodeum with either distinct (c, Fig. 23C ), partial ( Fig. 6B ) or indistinct carinae ( Fig. 19B ) ........................................................2 ( Phaeogenini ) 2. Mandibles unidentate, falcate (A, B)................................................................................................. 3 – Mandibles bidentate, shape various (a, b) ......................................................................................... 4

3. Areolet open, 3 rs-m absent (A); hind wing with distal abscissa of CU absent (B)............................. ........................................................................................................................ Lusius Tosquinet, 1903 – Areolet closed, 3 rs-m present (a), sometimes non-tubular (b); hind wing with distal abscissa of CU present (a), sometimes very faint (b) .................................................... Heterischnus Wesmael, 1859 4. Metasomal tergite 2 with gastrocoeli and thyridia totally absent (A, B)........................................... 5 – Metasomal tergite 2 with gastrocoeli present, and thyridia differentiated (a, b) ............................... 8

5. Propodeal apophyses strong, spine-like, at least as long as basally wide (A, B) ................................ ....................................................................................................... Hoplophaeogenes Heinrich, 1938 – Propodeum without spine-like apophyses, or apophyses hardly distinct (a, b)................................. 6

6. Sternaulus deep and long, reaching beyond mid-length of mesopleuron (A); areolet open, 3 rs-m absent (B); hind wing with distal abscissa of CU absent (B) ............................ Arearia Seyrig, 1952 – Sternaulus absent or at least much weaker and shorter (a); areolet closed, 3 rs-m present (b); hind wing with distal abscissa of CU present (b), sometimes non pigmented .......................................... 7 7. Propodeum smooth, unsculptured (at least anteriorly) with median areas fused into one single mid-longitudinal area (A, B) ............................................................................. Chauvinia Heinrich, 1938 – Propodeum punctate, or coarsely sculptured with area superomedia delimited (a, b) ........................ .................................................................................................................. Dicaelotus Wesmael, 1845

8. Hypostomal carina in female elevated into a flange and strongly curved or bent at its apex to join the ventral base of the mandible (A, B); in males, the ventral part of the genae strongly excavate .......... Aethecerus Wesmael, 1845 (only Afrotropical species: A. foveolatus Gregor, 1940 )

– Hypostomal carina in female normal, not elevated into a flange nor strongly curved or bent (a, b); in males, the ventral part of the genae not strongly excavate ( Fig. 25C ) .............................................. 9

9. Hypostomal and occipital carinae joining distinctly above mandibular base (A); posterior transverse carina ventrally widely interrupted in front of mid coxae (B); face short and transverse with a strong mid-longitudinal bulge, laterally limited by grooves (C) ............................... Tycherus Förster, 1869

– Hypostomal and occipital carinae joining at mandibular base (a); posterior transverse carina complete (b); face quadrate without distinct mid-longitudinal bulge (c) ........................................................ 10 10. Metasomal tergite 2 elongate, more than 2 × as long as apically wide (A); thyridia shallow and lighter than remainder of tergite (A); flagellum slender, longer than fore wing (B) ........................... .......................................................................................... Kibalus Rousse, van Noort & Diller, 2013

– Metasomal tergite 2 stout, less than 1.5× as long as apically wide (a); thyridia strongly marked and concolorous with remainder of tergite (a); flagellum shorter than or as long as fore wing (b) ........ 11

11. Clypeus not distinctly separated from face (epistomal sulcus obsolete) (A); median field of face indistinct (A); malar space long,> 0.5 × the base of mandible (A); thyridia strongly marked (B); hind coxa of female without a longitudinal carina/tooth on the ventral side (C) ........................................ ................. Diadromus Wesmael, 1845 (only Afrotropical species: D. collaris (Gravenhorst, 1829)) – Clypeus well separated from face (epistomal sulcus distinct) (a); median field of face distinct and protruding, delimited by carinae (a); malar space short, <0.5× the base of mandible (a); thyridia shallow (b); hind coxa of female with a longitudinal carina/tooth on the ventral side (c) .................. .................................................................................................... Centeterichneumon Heinrich, 1938

Figures

Fig. 4.Metasoma, dorsal view. A. Centeterichneumon denticoxatus denticoxatusHeinrich, 1938, syntype, ♀ (MZPW). B. Centeterichneumon denticoxatus obscuratus Heinrich, 1938, syntype, ♀ (MZPW).

Fig. 21. Distribution of Heterischnus mfongosi Rousse & van Noort, 2013. A. Previous (blue dots) and new records (yellow stars). B. Previous (blue) and new (yellow) country records.

Fig. 23. Distribution of Heterischnus olsoufieffi (Heinrich, 1938). A. Previous (blue dots) and new records (yellow stars). B. Previous (blue) and new (yellow) regional records.

Fig. 11. Chauvinia ganota Claridge sp. nov., holotype, ♀ (EMUS). A. Mesopleuron, lateral view. B. Mesosoma, dorso-lateral view.

Fig. 14. Distribution of Chauvinia ganota Claridge sp. nov. A. Type locality. B. Country record.

Fig. 6. Distribution of Centeterichneumon denticoxatus Heinrich, 1938, subspecies. A. Known occurrence records: C. denticoxatus denticoxatus (blue dot) and C. denticoxatus obscutatus (yellow dots). B. Regional distribution: C. denticoxatus denticoxatus (in blue) and C. denticoxatus obscutatus (in yellow).

Fig. 19. Heterischnus mfongosi Rousse & van Noort, 2013 (NHMUK). A. ♀, habitus, lateral view. B. ♂, habitus, lateral view.

Fig. 25. Distribution of Hoplophaeogenes curticornis Heinrich, 1938. A. Previous (blue dots) and new records (yellow star). B. Previous (blue) and new (yellow) regional records.

Fig. 26. Kibalus nonnaritae Dal Pos & Di Giovanni sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (TUZ). A. Habitus, lateral view. B. Head and mesosoma, dorsal view. C. Mesosoma, lateral view.