Gonaporus Ashmead, 1902

Zonstein, Irina & Wahis, Raymond, 2015, Revision of the Palaearctic genus Gonaporus Ashmead, 1902 of spider wasps (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae), Zootaxa 4018 (4), pp. 451-505 : 459-464

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4018.4.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:81CA1EED-5B91-4654-8BA5-9D179A7593B4
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5665451
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/900D9F6D-FF81-406C-72C3-F8C4CD9BFE1A
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Gonaporus Ashmead, 1902
status

Treatment

Genus Gonaporus Ashmead, 1902 View in CoL

Gonaporus Ashmead 1902: 88 View in CoL ; Haupt 1930: 770; Priesner 1955: 199; Wolf 1990: 621; Zonstein 2001: 139.

Type species Pompilus gracilis Klug, 1834 , by monotypy.

Emended diagnosis. The females of Gonaporus with a long truncate ventral tooth in the claws (in most genera of Pompilinae acuminate or absent; in Stigmaporus rounded or acuminate, Figs 38–40 View FIGURES 38 – 45 , 196 vs. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45). The males of Gonaporus are characterized by a relatively short and wide basal part of the volsella and its mostly wide ovoid apical part ( Figs 208–215 View FIGURES 208 – 211 View FIGURES 212 – 215 ). The males of Gonaporus are similar to some species of Xenaporus Ashmead, 1902 with long antennae and legs, such as the X. eremocanus species-group ( Figs 15 View FIGURES 11 – 16 , 55–60 View FIGURES 53 – 60. 53, 54 ) and X. ignoteremus Wolf, 1990 ( Figs 66–71 View FIGURES 66 – 71 ), but differ from those of X. ignoteremus and X. eremocanus species-group by a shorter pterostigma (1.7–2.7 × as long as wide in Gonaporus , while 3.0–3.1 × in X. ignoteremus , 3.4–3.5 × in X. eremocanus species-group). The males of most species of Gonaporus have claws with a short acuminate ventral tooth (Fig. 199) (claws without a ventral tooth in X. ignoteremus , Fig. 71 View FIGURES 66 – 71 ). The Gonaporus males differ from those X. eremocanus species-group by a slightly longer malar space (0.4–0.8 × as long as width of F 1 in Gonaporus , while 0.2–0.3 × in X. eremocanus species-group). The male and female of Gonaporus species also differs from X. eremocanus species-group by a shorter metapostnotum (0.4–0.7 × as long as metanotum in Gonaporus , Figs 29– 35 View FIGURES 29 – 37 , while 0.9–1.1 × in X. eremocanus species-group, Figs 36, 37 View FIGURES 29 – 37 ).

Redescription. Female. Body length 5.5–11.5 mm. Structure: see Table 1. Head: 1.1–1.3 × as wide as high and 1.4–1.6 × as wide as pronotum; eye ratio 1.6–2.0; malar space 0.10–0.77 × as high as apical width of F1; antenna long; F1 ratio 4.2–6.7; apical flagellomere ratio 3.1–5.5. Apical flagellomere slightly tapered and truncated narrowly ( Figs 110-120 View FIGURES 110 – 120 ). Metapostnotum 0.4–0.76 × as long as metanotum. Protarsomere 1 ratio 4.0–7.0. Protarsus with 6–9 long slender or slightly widened spines posteriorly; protarsomere 1 with 3–6 such spines and often with 1–3 additional short to long spines anteroventrally ( Figs 24–28 View FIGURES 17 – 28. 17 ); apical spine of protarsomere 1 0.36–0.89 × as long as protarsomere 1 ( Figs 131-141 View FIGURES 131 – 141 ). Claws of all legs with long truncate ventral tooth ( Figs 38–40 View FIGURES 38 – 45 , 196). Fore wing ratio 3.2–4.4; abscissa Rs1 of hind wing straight or arcuated ( Figs 175–185 View FIGURES 175 – 181 View FIGURES 182 – 188 ). Male. Body length 3.9–8.1 mm. Structure: see Table 2. Head: 1.1–1.3 × as wide as high and 1.1–1.5 × as wide as pronotum; eye ratio 1.5–1.8; malar space 0.25–0.80 × as high as apical width of F1; antenna long; F1 ratio 1.8-2.9; apical flagellomere ratio 2.3- 3.2. Apical flagellomere slightly tapered and truncated narrowly ( Figs 121–130 View FIGURES 121 – 130 ). Metapostnotum 0.37–0.90 × as long as metanotum. Protarsomere 1 ratio 4.0–7.0. Protarsus with 2–7 short to long acuminate spines posteriorly; protarsomere 1 with 0–4 short spines ventrally. Claws with acuminate ventral tooth or without such tooth (Figs 197–199). Fore wing ratio 3.5–4.6; abscissa Rs1 of hind wing straight or arcuated ( Figs 186–195 View FIGURES 182 – 188 View FIGURES 189 – 195 ). Subgenital plate (S8) hirsute, broad lanceolate or broad oval, with weak to strong median carina or two submedian carinae; dorsal surface more or less concave ( Figs 200–207 View FIGURES 200 – 207 ). Genitalia ( Figs 208–215 View FIGURES 208 – 211 View FIGURES 212 – 215 ).

Coloration in males and females: Varied from entirely black to entirely orange specimens ( Figs 5–12 View FIGURES 5 – 10 View FIGURES 11 – 16 ); in most species, however, head and mesosoma black, and metasoma orange basally and blackish-brown apically; flagellum and tarsi brown to blackish brown; claws brown to blackish-brown basally, orange to orange-brown apically. Female clypeus with smooth and shiny anterior margin; in males clypeus usually entirely covered by pubescence or with extremely narrow smooth and shiny anterior margin. Fore wing with large light orange-brown to dark brown spot apically; pterostigma brown. Metapostnotum subshiny, transversely wrinkled, with shallow median groove with or without pubescence ( Figs 29–35 View FIGURES 29 – 37 ). Pubescence: Head, mesosoma and propodeum with mostly light, long, silvery-gray to whitish, feather-like pubescence, partially hiding integument, usually with brown pubescence dorsally; metasoma and legs with fine shorter pubescence, usually forming inconspicuous fascia along posterior margin of T1–5 (in females), T1–6 (in males); tarsi with mixed, whitish and brownish pubescence; tarsomeres apically with brown to blackish pubescence. Pubescence density varies between specimens from different geographical areas ( Figs 30, 32 View FIGURES 29 – 37 ). Setae and spines: Inner orbit with long brownish-orange to dark brown setae along eye margin; head at least posteriorly, propleuron and often procoxa with long or moderately long fine whitish setae. Ventral surface of apical tarsomeres with very short, thick, blackish-brown setae. Profemur with 0–6 tiny spines anteriorly; meso- and metafemur each with 0–5 tiny spines dorsoapically ( Figs 18, 19 View FIGURES 17 – 28. 17 ).

Species included. Gonaporus alfierii Priesner, 1955 ; G. ecbatanus Wolf, 1990 ; G. emiratus I. Zonstein & Wahis , sp. nov.; G. gracilis ( Klug, 1834) ; G. israelicus ( Wolf, 1990) ; G. jaziratensis Wahis & I. Zonstein , sp. nov.; G. maureanus Wolf, 1990 ; G. mirabilis I. Zonstein & Wahis , sp. nov.; G. omanicus Wolf, 1990 ; G. setitarsus I. Zonstein & Wahis , sp. nov.; G. simulator Wahis & I. Zonstein , sp. nov.; G. spinosissimus Wahis & I. Zonstein , sp. nov.

Distribution. According to the scheme proposed by Holt et al. (2013), Gonaporus is mainly a Saharo-Arabian element distributed from the Canary Islands, Morocco and Mauritania in the west to Iran, Tajikistan and Pakistan in the east, with only one species known from the Afrotropical region ( Figs 216–217 View FIGURE 216 View FIGURE 217 ). With 12 species having been recorded altogether, the species diversity in the countries is as follows: United Arab Emirates (6), Israel (4), Egypt (4), Mauritania (3), Oman (3), Jordan (2), Tunisia (2), Libya (2), Chad (2), Sudan (2), Saudi Arabia (2), Pakistan (2), Canary Islands (1), Morocco (1), Algeria (1), Equatorial Guinea (1), Yemen (1), Iran (1), Uzbekistan (1), Tajikistan (1). Within the genus, five species are widespread: G. alfierii , G. ecbatanus , G. israelicus , G. gracilis , G. simulator sp. nov.; whereas seven, viz. G. emiratus sp. nov., G. jaziratensis sp. nov., G. maureanus , G. mirabilis sp. nov., G. omanicus , G. setitarsus sp. nov., G. spinosissimus sp. nov., have a narrower distribution.

FIGURES 46–52. Stigmaporus spp. (46, 50, ♂; 47–49, 51, 52, ♀). 46, 49, 50. S. wolfi . 47. S. centralasiaticus . 48. S. lystracantha . 46. Head (a, anterior; b, lateral, c, dorsal view). 47–50. Protarsus. 51, 52. Fore wing.

Remarks. Prior to this study, Gonaporus Ashmead, 1902 contained two subgenera: Stigmaporus S. Zonstein, 2001, and Gonaporus s. str. Stigmaporus is uniquely characterized among the Pompilinae by a very long pterostigma, which is about 4 × as long as wide. In addition, it differs from Gonaporus s. str. by a suite of morphological characters listed below, due to which we have elevated it here to the generic rank. Both genera share almost hyaline wings with contrasted apical spot in the fore wing, whereas in most other Pompilinae genera the wing is generally infuscate with more or less contrasted apical spot. Both genera share with several other genera (i.e., Eidopompilus Kohl, 1899 , Kentronaporus Wolf, 1990, Micraporus Priesner, 1955 , Microphadnus Cameron, 1904 , Pareioxenus Haupt, 1962, Tachyagetes Haupt, 1930 (s. l.) and Xenaporus Ashmead, 1902 ) the presence of two submarginal cells in the fore wing and shortened abscissa Rs1 of the hind wing. These genera, as well as Gonaporus and Stigmaporus, are also characterized by inconspicuous sulcus (ring) on the base of metafemur, and by the presence of usually 0–2 short spines on the dorsoapical portion of the metafemur. Most of them also share a moderately long to long non-depressed metapostnotum (0.4–1.0 × as long as metanotum), although in some species of Microphadnus and Tachyagetes the metapostnotum is shorter (0.1–0.3 × as long as metanotum).