Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer)
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.87.59794 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F16C4490-086F-4D88-A0BA-FDF13E995C4D |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/61AE794E-0D9E-5ECD-8A28-D2608C73A50E |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer) |
status |
|
Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer) View in CoL
Figures 55-58 View Figures 55–58 , 59 View Figure 59
Plagioscelio rufescens Kieffer, 1916: 186 (original description); Kieffer, 1926: 356, 357 (description, keyed); Kelner-Pillault, 1958: 151 (type information); Baltazar, 1966: 177 (cataloged, type information, distribution).
Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer): Masner, 1976: 33 (generic transfer); Johnson, 1992: 461 (cataloged, type information).
Description.
Color of antenna in female: unknown. Color of antenna in male: radicle and A1-A6 lighter than A7-A12. Color of head: light orange. Color of mesosoma: mostly reddish-brown, with lighter areas on mesoscutum, mesopleuron, netrion, and pronotum. Color of metasoma: mostly reddish-brown, except for T3 and T4 which are lighter throughout most of their length. Color of legs: light yellow-brown, fore legs darkest. Setation of frons: long, sparse. Sculpture of frons: transversely rugose ventrally, smooth dorsally, punctate throughout. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Length of LOL: 1 OD. Notaulus: absent. Setation of mesoscutellum: present. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate throughout. Form of metascutellum: transverse. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: smooth. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: dense. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: present posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: present posteriorly. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: transversely rugose anterodorsally, otherwise smooth. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: 2.5 times as long as remaining tarsomeres.
Diagnosis.
The granulate mesoscutellum and sculpture of the triangular propodeal plate distinguishes P. rufescens from the male of P. buka sp. nov. We did not observe any characters that would reliably separate P. rufescens from the male of P. canalis .
Material examined.
Holotype, male: Philippines: Mindanao Isl., Butuan Chartered City, Baker , MNHN 0026 (deposited in MNHN).
Comments.
The holotypes of P. rufescens and P. rufa were collected on the Philippine island of Mindanao in Butuan, probably as part of the same collecting event. This led Masner (1976) to suggest that P. rufescens is the male of P. rufa . This is probably true, but we refrain from synonymizing P. rufescens with P. rufa because we did not physically examine the holotype, and the male is indistinguishable from specimens of the same sex that were collected from locations where P. rufa females were not examined (Figures 63-65 View Figures 63–65 , 69 View Figures 69–71 - 74 View Figures 72–74 ).
In the original description of P. rufescens , Kieffer (1916) stated that the rear ocelli are separated from the inner margin of the compound eye by twice their diameter. Images of the holotype show this is not the case: the rear ocelli appear to be positioned less than 1 OD from the inner margin of the compound eye (Figure 56 View Figures 55–58 ). Kieffer (1916) also mentioned that the postmarginal vein (postmarginalis) of the fore wing is absent. This is incorrect. Like all Phoenoteleia , the postmarginal vein of P. rufescens is at least twice as long as the stigmal vein.
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer)
Lahey, Zachary, Musetti, Luciana, Masner, Lubomir & Johnson, Norman F. 2021 |
Plagioscelio rufescens
Kieffer 1916 |