Chrysidea phoebe Zimmermann, 1956
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2019.564 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:ABFB8379-5ADD-44F6-8746-F277DD09E120 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3476981 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F6510506-785C-FF88-FDD8-F9DB1DE3F9AD |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Chrysidea phoebe Zimmermann, 1956 |
status |
|
Chrysidea phoebe Zimmermann, 1956
Figs 6–7 View Fig View Fig , 9C View Fig
Chrysidea phoebe Zimmermann, 1956: 151
Chrysidea phoebe – Zimmermann 1961: 320 (catalog). — Bohart 1988: 130 (key, partim). — Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 314 (catalog). — Madl 2008: 83 (catalog). — Azevedo et al. 2010: 830 (catalog).
Chrysidea pumiloides – Zimmermann 1961: 320 (catalog). — Bohart 1988: 130 (key, partim). — Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 314 (catalog). — Madl 2008: 83 (catalog). — Azevedo et al. 2010: 830 (catalog).
Material examined
Holotype
MADAGASCAR • ♀; “ MNHN, Paris / EY25667”; “MUSÉUM PARIS”; “ Madagascar: Bekily / XI – 1943 / A. Seyrig ”;“ Chrysidea / phoebe Zimm. / det. Zimmermann /Type![handwritten by Zimmermann]”; “ ♀ Chrysidea / phoebe / Zimmermann/ Holotype [handwritten on red card]”; MNHN.
Other material
MADAGASCAR • 1 ♀; “ MADAGASCAR /BEHARA”; “MUSÉUM PARIS / I. 38 /A. SEYRIG”; “ Chrysidea / phoebe Zimm. / det. Zimmermann [handwritten by Zimmermann on white card]”; “ Type [red paper glued on the previous label]”; NHMW • 1 ♂; “Madagascar / Sikora”; “MUSEUM PARIS / MADAGASCAR / H. DE SAUSSURE 1901”; “ Chrysidea / pumiloides / ♂ Zimm. [handwritten by Bohart]”; MNHN .
Diagnosis
Chrysidea phoebe is characterized by the combination of the following characters: metatarsus paler, yellowish to testaceous; TFC present; head wide, 1.2–1.3 × as wide as high; MS = 0.6–0.8 MOD; tegula metallic green; T2 with interspaces among punctures distinctly (female) or weakly (male) microreticulate; distal margin of T3 with large, triangular lateral teeth and distal apex angulated, interval between median angle and lateral tooth substraight; paramere with inner margin weakly expanded, narrowed apically.
Description
Female
BODY LENGTH. 6.2 mm.
HEAD. Width 1.2 × as wide as high. Scapal basin deep, transversely wrinkled and outer margin punctate. TFC present above scapal basin, sinuate ( Fig. 6B View Fig ); second irregular TFC present but indistinct between midocellus and TFC ( Fig. 6B View Fig ). Antennomeres P, F1, F2, F 3 in the following proportions: 1.9, 2.3, 1.8, 1.3; F7–11 missing in holotype; OOL = 1.7 MOD; POL = 2.3 MOD; MS = 0.6 MOD; apical margin of clypeus weakly concave; mandible edentate; basal width of mandible = 1.3 MOD. Brow with large, irregular and longitudinally contiguous punctures; punctures between the two TFC deeper, irregular, and continuous ( Fig. 6B View Fig ), PD on vertex 0.3–0.5 MOD.
MESOSOMA. Pronotal groove shallow and indistinct, extending ⁴⁄₅ length of pronotum. Notauli deep, complete; parapsidal lines indicated by smooth strip. Mesoscutellum almost flat. Metanotum weakly producing posteriorly ( Fig. 6A View Fig ), separated from mesoscutellum by deep furrow and large anteromedian pit ( Fig. 6C View Fig ). Mesosoma entirely covered with large deep punctures and small shallow punctures: largest punctures 0.6 MOD; mesoscutellum medially with impunctate area, interspaces among punctures microsculptured ( Fig. 6C View Fig ). Episternal sulcus and scrobal sulcus distinct, formed by large foveae. Forewing with discoidal cell framed by nebulous veins, not enclosed by pigmented veins ( Fig. 6A View Fig ).
METASOMA. Faint median line present on T1 ( Fig. 6D View Fig ). Punctures on T1 0.3–0.5 MOD, 0.1–0.2 PD apart, with smooth interspaces; punctures on T2 smaller, 0.2–0.3 MOD, 0.2 PD apart, with interspaces microreticulate; median line indistinct (holotype) or distinct (a female in NHMW); pre-pit row area of T3 not bulged; pit row distinct, with large and deep pits. Apex of T3 with a pair of lateral triangular teeth; distal apex angulated ( Fig. 6F View Fig ); interval between lateral tooth and median angle substraight. S2 black spots ( Fig. 6E View Fig ) oval, 0.5 MOD apart each other (metasomal sterna missing in holotype).
COLORATION. Head and mesosoma metallic green or blue-green with blue or purplish luster, ocellar region more bluish. Antenna black with scape, pedicel metallic green. Mandible medially testaceous, distally dark brown, basal ½ metallic green. Tegula metallic green; deep anteromedian pit on metanotum metallic blue. Legs metallic green or blue-green except tarsi entirely yellowish ( Fig. 6A View Fig ). Metasomal terga metallic green or blue-green with blue luster; metasomal sterna metallic green with golden luster (holotype lacks sterna).
Male
Body 4.7 mm. The single known specimen lacks F5–F11. Similar to female ( Fig. 7 View Fig A–B, F), but different as follow: body greenish, metasoma metallic green with faint golden luster ( Fig. 7D View Fig ), tarsi dark testaceous, only metabasitarsus yellowish; head 1.3 × as wide as high, upper TFC more distinct ( Fig. 7B View Fig ), MS = 0.8 MOD; interspaces among punctures on mesoscutellum smooth ( Fig. 7C View Fig ); tarsi light brown with metabasitarsus testaceous ( Fig. 7A View Fig ); punctures on metasoma sparser, 0.2–0.3 PD apart on T2; S2 black spots large, rounded, medially separated by 0.4 MOD ( Fig. 7E View Fig ); paramere with inner margin weakly expanded, narrowed apically ( Fig. 9C View Fig ); aedeagus narrowed apically ( Fig. 9C View Fig ).
Distribution
Southern Madagascar.
Biology
Unknown.
Remarks
Chrysidea phoebe is similar to C. phragmiticola Zimmerman, 1961 . The T3 distal apex in C. phoebe is distinctly angulated and the interval between the median angle and a lateral tooth is substraight ( Figs 6F View Fig , 7F View Fig ); on the other hand, the posterior margin is rounded and the median angle is absent in C. phragmiticola . The body color of both species is basically metallic green, but metabasitarsus of C. phoebe is yellowish ( Figs 6A View Fig , 7A View Fig ), non-metallic green as in C. phragmiticola . A female in NHMW is considered to be non-type material, even if it has a type label, because no type was designated other than the holotype deposited in MNHN ( Zimmermann, 1956).
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 |
|
SubFamily |
Chrysidinae |
Genus |
Chrysidea phoebe Zimmermann, 1956
Mita, Toshiharu & Rosa, Paolo 2019 |
Chrysidea phoebe –
Azevedo C. & Madl M. & Olmi M. 2010: 830 |
Madl M. 2008: 83 |
Kimsey L. S. & Bohart R. M. 1991: 314 |
Bohart R. M. 1988: 130 |
Zimmermann S. 1961: 320 |
Chrysidea pumiloides – Zimmermann 1961: 320
Azevedo C. & Madl M. & Olmi M. 2010: 830 |
Madl M. 2008: 83 |
Kimsey L. S. & Bohart R. M. 1991: 314 |
Bohart R. M. 1988: 130 |
Zimmermann S. 1961: 320 |
Chrysidea phoebe
Zimmermann S. 1956: 151 |