Trichrysis bengalensis ( Mocsáry, 1889 ), Bijoy, 2022

Rosa, Paolo, Aswathi, Pokkattu Gopi, Wiśniowski, Bogdan & Bijoy, Chenthamarakshan, 2022, Preliminary revision of the Indian cuckoo wasp genera Trichrysis Lichtenstein, 1876 and Chrysidea Bischoff, 1910, with description of a new species (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae), European Journal of Taxonomy 852, pp. 117-143 : 121-123

Trichrysis bengalensis ( Mocsáry, 1889) stat. rev.

Fig. 1

Chrysis (Trichrysis) bengalensis Mocsáry, 1889: 527 .

Chrysis bengalensis : – Dalla Torre 1892: 47. — Bingham 1903: 439 (in key), 482–483; 1908: 349.

Chrysis (Pentachrysis) bengalensis : – Bischoff 1913: 62.

Praestochrysis lusca : – Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 533.

Material examined

Holotype INDIA • ♀; Bombay , Maharastra; “Bombay, [leg.] Stockinger”; 755–1; “ Bengalensis Mocs. typ. det. Mocsáry”; “ Chrysis lusca F. Linsenmaier det. 62”; “ Holotypus Chrysis bengalensis ♀ Mocs. RMB ”; “id nr. 135510 HNHM Hym.coll.”; HNHM.

Distribution

India (Maharashtra; possibly Tamil Nadu: Chennai [= Madras] ( Bingham 1903)).

Remarks

The holotype of Chrysis bengalensis Mocsáry, 1889 ( Fig. 1 ) is different from the examined specimens of Trichrysis lusca ( Fig. 3 ), as described by Mocsáry (1889) and Bingham (1903). In addition to the uniform dark blue colouration (vs more extensively green to light blue in T. lusca ) and the dark brown wings (vs light fusco-hyaline in T. lusca ), it is coarsely punctured with large and deeper punctures, compared to T. lusca ; the TFC is close to the upper margin of the scapal basin and without the vertical frontal carina that originated from the mid TFC and bisecting the upper frons, as in T. lusca (compare Rosa et al. 2016: fig. 40); the two lateral, upward branches of the TFC are raised (vs irregular); the pit row has large and deep pits (vs small); the apical margin bears three pointed teeth with an angle between the median and the lateral tooth instead of five distinct, short teeth; intervals between teeth are wider than in T. lusca .

Based on the type examination, and the characters listed above, we consider T. bengalensis as a valid species, and we here resurrect it from the previous synonymy with Praestochrysis lusca proposed by Kimsey & Bohart (1991). The placement of the lusca species group in the genus Trichrysis rather than in the genus Praestochrysis was already discussed by Linsenmaier (1997) and Rosa et al. (2016). Other specimens examined from the Oriental region show differences from the type of Trichrysis lusca ( Fig. 3 ) and are very likely members of a species complex, which is worthy of further investigation.

Figures

Fig. 1. Trichrysis bengalensis (Mocsáry, 1889), ♀, holotype (HNHM). A. Habitus, lateral view.B. Head, frontal view. C. Mesosoma, dorsal view. D. Head and mesosoma, lateral view. E. Metasoma, dorsal view. F. Metasoma, lateral view. Scale bars: 1.0 mm.

Fig. 3. Chrysis spectrum Wickar, 1908, ♀, lectotype (NHMUK). A. Habitus, lateral view. B. Habitus, posterior view. Scale bars: 1.0 mm.