Key to species of euryglossiform Scrapter

Here, we provide an updated key for the identification of euryglossiform Scrapter, by Kuhlmann (2014), including the newly described species.

Females

The females of S. glareus, S. hergi Kuhlmann sp. nov., S. minutissimus and S. willemstrydomi Kuhlmann sp. nov. are unknown.

1. Stigma bright yellow (Kuhlmann 2014: Fig. 11a) …………………… S. luteistigma Kuhlmann, 2014

– Stigmalighttodarkbrown……………………………………………………………………………2

2. Apical tergal margins broadly brownish to yellowish translucent(Figs 3E, 8E; Kuhlmann2014:figs 1b, 28b, 32e); body length 4.9–6.6 mm…………………………………………………………………3

– Apical tergal margins black or very narrowly brownish translucent; body length 4.3–5.6 mm……7

3. Punctation on basal part of clypeus much finer than apically (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 28c–d); foretibia entirely or predominantly yellowish to reddish brown (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 28a)……… …………………………………………………………………………… S. sittybon Davies, 2005

– Punctation on clypeus more evenly sized (Figs 3B, 8B; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 1c–d, 32b); foretibia dominantly dark blackish-brown……………………………………………………………………4

4. Metasomal terga between punctures smooth and shiny (Fig. 8E; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 1b)………5

– Metasomal terga between punctures at least finely sculptured and slightly matt (Fig. 3E; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 32e)………………………………………………………………………………………6

5. Clypeus distinctly convex (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 1c–d); scutum with dense punctation (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 1e–f)……………………………………………………… S. acanthophorus Davies, 2005

– Clypeus almost flat (Fig. 8B); scutum with sparse punctation (Fig. 8C)… S. nitens Kuhlmann sp. nov.

6. Clypeus between punctures smooth and shiny (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 32b); scutum superficially reticulate but shiny (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 32c–d)……………………… S. ulrikae Kuhlmann, 2014

– Clypeus between punctures superficially sculptured and slightly matt (Fig. 3B); scutum reticulate and matt (Fig. 3C)…………………………………………… S. fynbosensis Kuhlmann sp. nov.

7. Scutum sparsely and finely punctured, looking almost impunctate and shiny (Kuhlmann 2014: figs 6e–f, 8e–f)………………………………………………………………………………………8

– Scutum more densely and coarsely punctured…………………………………………………10

8. Supraclypeal area, clypeus (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 6c–d) and mesepisternum only partially and superficially reticulate, more shiny…………………………………… S. exiguus Kuhlmann, 2014

– Supraclypeal area apically, clypeus basally (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 8c–d) and mesepisternum extensively and strongly reticulate, matt……………………………………………………………9

9. Facial fovea slightly shorter than in S. gessorum (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 4a–b); a variable species with respect to surface sculpture and punctation (Kuhlmann 2014: figs 3c–f, 4a–d)…………………… …………………………………………………………………………… S. albitarsis (Friese, 1909)

– Facial fovea slightly longer than in S. albitarsis (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 8d) ………………………… ……………………………………………………………………… S. gessorum Kuhlmann, 2014

10. Clypeus and supraclypeal area matt, strongly reticulate, very sparsely, finely and shallowly punctate (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 10c–d)…………………………………… S. inexpectatus Kuhlmann, 2014

– Clypeus and supraclypeal area more shiny or just slightly matt, only partly or superficially sculptured, punctation usually stronger and denser………………………………………………11

11. Metasomal terga finely and densely punctate, between punctures smooth and shiny (Fig. 2E; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 18b)………………………………………………………………………12

– Metasomal terga either impunctate or with more dispersed/coarser punctation; if punctation is similar (some specimens of S. punctatus), then terga at least basally with superficial sculpture and slightly matt ……………………………………………………………………………………………………13

12. Scutum very densely (i = 0,5–1 d) punctate (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 18e–f), propodeum basally shallowly but broadly carinate (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 18f)…… S. nigerrimus Kuhlmann, 2014

– Scutum coarser (i = 1–2,5 d) punctate (Fig. 2C), propodeum basally only laterally with distinct but fine carination (Fig. 2D)………………………………… S. bokkeveldensis Kuhlmann sp. nov.

13. Metasomal terga impunctate; scutum distinctly reticulate and shallowly punctate……………14

– Metasomal terga punctate, sometimes punctures minute…………………………………………15

14. Basal area of propodeum distinctly and largely carinate (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 19b)………………… ……………………………………………………………………… S. nigritarsis Kuhlmann, 2014

– Basal area of propodeum along anterior margin indistinctly carinate (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 25c–d)… ……………………………………………………………………… S. pygmaeus Kuhlmann, 2014

15. Scutum very coarsely punctate (Fig. 9C; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 23c–d, 30c–d)…………16

– Scutum finer punctate (Figs 1C, 6 C–D, 5C; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 14e–f, 15c–d, 16e–f, 21c–f, 26c– d)…………………………………………………………………………………………………18

16. Propodeum basally broadly and distinctly carinate (Fig. 9D; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 30c–d)……17

– Propodeum with few, short and indistinct carinae (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 23c–d)………………… ………………………………………………………………… S. punctulatus Kuhlmann nom. nov.

17. Basal area of propodeum shorter, medially only slightly longer than metanotum (Fig. 9D)……… …………………………………………………………………… S. oubergensis Kuhlmann sp. nov.

– Basal area of propodeum longer, medially about 1.5 times as long as metanotum (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 30c–d)……………………………………………………………… S. spinipes Kuhlmann, 2014

18. Punctation of metasomal terga minute, almost invisible (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 26e)……………… ……………………………………………………………………… S. roggeveldi Kuhlmann, 2014

– Punctation of metasomal terga much coarser and clearly visible (Figs 1C, 6 C–D, 5C; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 14b, 15e, 16b, 21g–h)…………………………………………………………………19

19. Head distinctly broader than long (Figs 1C, 6 C–D, 5C; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 14c–d, 16c–d)……20

– Head about as long as broad (Kuhlmann 2014: figs 15b, 21b)……………………………………24

20. Clypeus, supraclypeal area and T1mostly polished and shiny,only partially very finely and superficially sculptured, slightly matt (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 14b–d)………… S. minutuloides Kuhlmann, 2014

– Clypeus, supraclypeal area and T1 (particularly anteriorly) mostly finely sculptured and matt (Figs 1C, 6 C–D, 5C; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 16b–d)…………………………………………………21

21. Scutum densely (i = 0,5–1,5 d) punctate (Figs 1C, 5C)…………………………………………22

– Scutum sparsely (i> 1,5 d) punctate (Fig. 6 C–D; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 16e–f)…………………23

22. Propodeum basally distinctly and broadly carinate (Fig. 1D)… S. avontuuensis Kuhlmann sp. nov.

– Propodeum basally only indistinctly and shallowly carinate (Fig. 5D)……………………………… ……………………………………………………………………… S.keiskiensis Kuhlmann sp.nov.

23. Propodeum basally distinctly and broadly carinate (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 16e–f)………………… …………………………………………………………………………… S. nanus Kuhlmann, 2014

– Propodeum basally finer and just very shallowly carinate, sometimes just laterally visible (Fig. 6 E– F)…………………………………………………………… S. mellonholgeri Kuhlmann sp. nov.

24. Metanotum apically more evenly rounded, without distinct carinate depression (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 15d); fore tibia anteriorly largely yellowish-brown……… S. minutus Kuhlmann, 2014

– Metanotum apically with a carinate depression (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 21d, f); fore tibia anteriorly blackish, only at the base with a small yellowish spot……… S. papkuilsi Kuhlmann, 2014

Males

The males of S. avontuurensis Kuhlmann sp. nov., S. bokkeveldensis Kuhlmann sp. nov., S. fynbosensis Kuhlmann sp. nov., S. gessorum, S. inexpectatus, S. keiskiensis Kuhlmann sp. nov., S. minutuloides, S. minutus, S. nigerrimus, S. nitens Kuhlmann sp. nov., S. oubergensis Kuhlmann sp. nov. and S. pygmaeus are unknown.

1. Antennal flagellum medially broadened, entirely orange (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 12b); stigma bright yellow (Kuhlmann 2014: Fig. 12a); S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 12d, f)………………… ……………………………………………………………………… S. luteistigma Kuhlmann, 2014

– Antennal flagellum not broadened, only partly yellowish; stigma darker……………………………2

2. Third hind tarsus triangular broadened (Fig. 10E)………… S. willemstrydomi Kuhlmann sp. nov.

– Third hind tarsus unmodified………………………………………………………………………3

3. Antenna long, last flagellar segment about twice as long as wide (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 24e); S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 24d, f)………………………… S. punctulatus Kuhlmann nom. nov.

– Antenna shorter, last flagellar segment at most 1.5 times as long as wide……………………4

4. Hind tibia inside apically broadened, pointed (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 22e) or forming either a spine (Fig. 7E; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 2e, 31e) or a ± right angle (Fig. 4G; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 27g)……5

– Hind tibia unmodified, if apically broadened then without spine or ± sharp edge……………10

5. Hind tibia inside apically forming a ± right angle (Fig. 4G; Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 27g)……………6

– Hind tibia inside apically pointed (Kuhlmann 2014: Fig. 22e) or forming a spine (Fig. 7E; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 2e, 31e)………………………………………………………………………7

6. Body about 5 mm long; hind tibia forming a distinct right angle (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 27g); S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 27d, f)………………………… S. roggeveldi Kuhlmann, 2014

– Body longer; hind tibia forming a shallow right angle (Fig. 4G); S7 and S8 as in Fig. 4F, H …… ………………………………………………………………………… S. hergi Kuhlmann sp. nov.

7. Hind tibia inside apically pointed (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 22e); scutum and metasomal terga finely punctate (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 22c); S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 22d, f)……………………………………………………………………… S. papkuilsi Kuhlmann, 2014

– Hind tibia inside apically with spine (Fig. 7E; Kuhlmann 2014: figs 2e, 31e)………………8

8. Scutum and metasomal terga coarsely punctate (Kuhlmann 2014: figs 2c, 31c)……………9

– Scutum coarsely and metasomal terga finely punctate (Fig. 7C)… S. mellonholgeri Kuhlmann sp. nov.

9. Hind tibia apically with longer spine (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 31e); metasomal terga densely punctate (Kuhlmann2014:Fig.31c);S7and S8as in Kuhlmann(2014:fig.31d,f) … S. spinipes Kuhlmann, 2014

– Hind tibia apically with shorter spine (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 2e); metasomal terga sparsely punctate (Kuhlmann2014:fig.2c);S7and S8 as in Kuhlmann(2014:fig.2d,f)… S.acanthophorus Davies, 2005

10. Hind basitarsus brown to blackish………………………………………………………………11

– Hind basitarsus yellowish…………………………………………………………………………14

11. Hind tibia apically slightly swollen and curved (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 29e); scutum between punctures smooth and shiny; S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 29d, f)… S. sittybon Davies, 2005

– Hind tibia unmodified; scutum between punctures sculptured and matt………………………12

12. Basal half of T2–T4 densely covered with short, silverish hair (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 33c); S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 33d–e)…………………… S. ulrikae Kuhlmann, 2014

– Basal half of T2–T4 almost hairless (Kuhlmann 2014: figs 17c, e, 20c)…………………………13

13. Discs of metasomal terga impunctate, very finely and regularly sculptured (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 20c); S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 20d–e)………………………… S. nigritarsis Kuhlmann, 2014

– Discs of metasomal terga partly punctate, strongly to heavily and irregularly sculptured (Kuhlmann 2014:fig.17c,e);S7 and S8as in Kuhlmann(2014:fig.17d,f)……………… S. nanus Kuhlmann, 2014

14. Hind tibia yellow with a brown spot on the back side (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 9a, c); S7 and S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 9d–e)…………………………………………… S. glareus Davies, 2005

– Hind tibia mostly black (Kuhlmann 2014: figs 5a, 7a, 13a)………………………………………15

The males of the following three species are very similar and can be best separated by S7 and S8.

15. S7 without membraneous apicolateral lobes (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 13d); S8 as in Kuhlmann (2014: fig. 13e)…………………………………………………………… S. minutissimus Kuhlmann, 2014

– S7 with membraneous apicolateral lobes (Kuhlmann 2014: figs 5d, 7d)……………………………16

16. S7 apically with emargination slightly broader and shallower (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 5d)………… …………………………………………………………………………… S. albitarsis (Friese, 1909)

– S7 apically with emargination slightly narrower and deeper (Kuhlmann 2014: fig. 7d)……………… ………………………………………………………………………… S. exiguus Kuhlmann, 2014