Ceraphron naivashae Kieffer, 1913

Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, European Journal of Taxonomy 502, pp. 1-60 : 25-27

Ceraphron naivashae Kieffer, 1913

Fig. 13

Ceraphron Naivashae Kieffer, 1913b: 10 , 13, ♀. MNHN. Keyed.

Calliceras naivashae – Kieffer 1914c: 78, 103. Generic transfer, description, keyed.

Ceraphron naivashae – Risbec 1955: 552. Keyed. –– Dessart 1966a: 17, figs 22–24. Description, illustration; 1989: 233. Keyed.

Material examined

Holotype

KENYA • ♀; “AFRIQUE ORIENTALE ANGLAISE: fond du Rift Valley , a Naivasha, station de l’Uganda railway et chef-lieu de province, sur les bords du lac de Naivasha, altitude de 1.900 m., st. no 14, 1er decembre 1911.” ( Kieffer 1913b: 13); MNHN EY25360 , EY22429 to EY22431 .

Distribution

Afrotropical.

Comments

Kieffer (1913b) only described the female of this species, naming it for Naivasha, Africa, where it was collected. The female specimen at the MNHN is the only known specimen, which Dessart (1966a) considered as the holotype. Dessart (1966a) re-described the species from this female specimen and illustrated the wing and antennae.

Risbec (1950) proposed that Ceraphron cavifrons could be the male matching the female of C. naivashae (or C. oriphilus or C. alticola ), while Risbec (1953b) suggested that Ceraphron soavinae could be the male matching this species. Dessart (1966a) comments on Risbec’s musings, saying that neither species seemed to match Ceraphron naivashae from their descriptions, though he had not viewed the type of either at that point. We know that Dessart later viewed C. cavifrons , providing diagnostic characters for the species and distinguishing it from C. naivashae in his key ( Dessart 1989). Dessart never found the type of C. soavinae ; however, he noted that Risbec (1953b) had described the species as a type of Ceraphron without a median mesoscutal furrow. Since Dessart knew of only one Ceraphron species from America with a partially absent median mesoscutal groove and no Ceraphron species where it was completely missing, he thought that either Risbec had made a mistake or that the species was actually an Aphanogmus ( Dessart 1989: 216) . Dessart (1989) kept C. soavinae in his key, since he had not observed any specimens, but the key distinguishes it from C. naivashae , and it is highly unlikely that the male and female match.

Dessart dissected the specimen and made three preparations (prep. no. 6505/ I81) of the right antenna (MNHN EY22429), left antenna (MNHN EY22430) and left wing (MNHN EY22431). The rest of the specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25360). It is uncertain when Dessart dissected the specimen: the year given on the slides is 1965, while the year written on his determination label on the specimen in ethanol is 1966. The specimen in ethanol does not have any locality labels associated with it, though it does bear a determination label from Kieffer reading “ Ceraphron Naivashae K || type 14”.

Figures

Fig. 13. Ceraphron naivashae Kieffer, 1913, holotype, ♀. A. Lateral view (MNHN EY25360). B. Left antenna (MNHN EY22430). C. Left wing (MNHN EY22431).