Enicospilus shinkanus (Uchida, 1928)
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.990.55542 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7B73642C-278D-40F8-9091-B26213C9A704 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5847E5BA-E34C-5C50-B484-2C4FDC71A377 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Enicospilus shinkanus (Uchida, 1928) |
status |
|
Enicospilus shinkanus (Uchida, 1928) Figure 45 View Figure 45
Henicospilus shinkanus Uchida, 1928: 217; HT ♀ from Taiwan, SEHU, examined.
Henicospilus yamanakai Uchida, 1930: 83; HT ♀ from Japan, SEHU, examined; syn. nov.
Henicospilus pankumensis Cheesman, 1936: 184; HT ♀ from Vanuatu, NHMUK, examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 361).
Enicospilus relictus Chiu, 1954: 20; HT ♀ from Taiwan, TARI, examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 361).
Enicospilus (Unicorniata) bindus Nikam, 1972: 194; HT ♀ from India, MUC, not examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 361).
Specimens examined.
Total of 87 specimens (64♀♀21♂♂ and 2 unsexed): Chagos archipelago (2♀♀10♂♂ and 2 unsexed), India (40♀♀5♂♂), Japan (18♀♀3♂♂), Solomon Islands (1♀1♂), Taiwan (2♀♀2♂♂), Vanuatu (1♀).
Type series: HT ♀ of Henicospilus shinkanus Uchida, 1928, Sugar Ex. St., TAIWAN (SEHU); HT ♀ of Henicospilus yamanakai Uchida, 1930, Izuôshima Is., Tôkyô, Kantô-Kôshin, JAPAN, 10.IX.1926, M. Yamanaka leg. (SEHU); HT ♀ of Enicospilus relictus Chiu, 1954, Kotosho, TAIWAN, III-IV.1932, S. Hirayama leg. (TARI); HT ♀ of Henicospilus pankumensis Cheesman, 1936, Santo, New Hebrides [= VANUATU], VIII-IX.1929, L.E. Cheesman leg. (NHMUK, Type 3b.1239).
Distribution.
Australasian, Eastern Palaearctic, Oceanic, and Oriental regions ( Yu et al. 2016).
JAPAN: [ Hokkaidô]*; [Hokuriku] Niigata*; [ Kantô-Kôshin] Tôkyô *; [ Tôkai] Shizuoka*; [ Chûgoku] Hiroshima*; [ Kyûshû] Kagoshima*; [ Ryûkyûs] Kagoshima* and Okinawa ( Chiu 1954; Momoi 1970; present study). *New records.
Bionomics.
No host records from Japan. Reported as a parasitoid of Dendrolimus punctatus (Walker) ( Lasiocampidae ) in China ( Tang 1990).
Differential diagnosis.
According to Gauld and Mitchell (1981), this species is very similar to E. rufus ( Brullé, 1846), but distinguished by its longer fore wing fenestra (Fig. 45F View Figure 45 ). It is also sometimes confused with E. sakaguchii due to their similar clypeus shape (i.e., flat, projecting apically above mandibles in profile, as in Figs 41D View Figure 41 and 45D View Figure 45 ) and absence of the fore wing central sclerite (Figs 41F View Figure 41 , 45F View Figure 45 ), but easily distinguished by many mandibular characters, such as the mandible rather long in E. shinkanus (Fig. 45B, D View Figure 45 ) but very short and stout in E. sakaguchii (Fig. 41B, D View Figure 41 ); and outer mandibular surface smooth in E. shinkanus (Fig. 45D View Figure 45 ) but with a diagonal setose groove in E. sakaguchii (Fig. 41B, D View Figure 41 ).
Remarks.
The holotype of Henicospilus yamanakai Uchida, 1930 was examined and identified as E. shinkanus . Hence, H. yamanakai syn. nov. is newly synonymised with E. shinkanus .
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 |
|
Genus |
Enicospilus shinkanus (Uchida, 1928)
Shimizu, So, Broad, Gavin R. & Maeto, Kaoru 2020 |
Enicospilus (Unicorniata) bindus
Nikam 1972 |
Enicospilus relictus
Chiu 1954 |