Eotrogaspidia rubripes ( André, 1901 ) Okayasu & Lelej & Williams, 2021

Okayasu, Juriya, Lelej, Arkady S. & Williams, Kevin A., 2021, Review of Eotrogaspidia Lelej (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae: Trogaspidiini), Zootaxa 4920 (1), pp. 56-90 : 79

Eotrogaspidia rubripes ( André, 1901) , comb. nov.

( Figs 4B, 4F , 12F )

Mutilla catanensis var. rubripes André, 1901: 287 , ♀, syntypes ♀ ( Syrie [= Syria]; Jéricho, [ Palestine]) [MNHN]; André 1902: 33.

Trogaspidia rubripes: Invrea 1950: 21 , ♀; Invrea 1965: 80, ♀; Lelej 2002: 85; Pagliano et al. 2020: 289.

Diagnosis. FEMALE. Posterolateral propodeal margin at most tuberculate ( Fig. 4B ). T2 pale setal spots small, distance between them 1.0 × or more than spot diameter ( Fig. 4B ); T3–4 with a pair of small lateral pale setal spots, distance between spots and that between spot and lateral margin of tergum 0.5 × spot diameter ( Fig. 4B ); pygidial plate irregularly rugose on anterior 1/2 and smooth posteriorly ( Fig. 12F ). MALE. Unknown.

Material examined. 2♀. Afghanistan: LAGHMAN PROVINCE : 1♀, Shamakat , 2.IV.1972, O. Kabakov leg. [ IBSS] . Iran: MAZANDERAN: 1♀, coastal plain between Chalus and Shahsavar, 20 m, 12.V.1965, D.B. Baker [ SEMC] .

Distribution. Afghanistan *: Laghman. Iran *: Mazanderan. Palestine ( André 1901; Invrea 1950, 1965). Syria ( André 1901).

Remarks. The female of Eotrogaspidia rubripes resembles that of Neotrogaspidia hammeri ( Suárez, 1959) described from Cyprus ( Suárez 1959) and currently known from Cyprus, Greece, Palestine, Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South-West Turkmenistan ( Lelej 2002). Suárez (1959) and Invrea (1965) considered that the male of N. hammeri was the opposite sex of E. rubripes . The true female of N. hammeri was associated with a male by Lelej (1985). The female of E. rubripes differs from that of N. hammeri by the shape and sculpture of the pygidial plate.

Figures

FIGURE 4. Eotrogaspidia spp., ♀, habitus. A, E. E. oryzae (Pagden); B, F. E. rubripes (André); C, G. E. saussurei (Lelej); D, H. Trogaspidia vallicola Tsuneki, holotype; A–D. dorsal view; E–H. lateral view.

FIGURE 12. Eotrogaspidia spp., ♀, pygidial plate. A. E. amans (André); B. E. auroguttata (Smith); C. E. buddha sp. nov., paratype; D. E. melanopleura sp. nov., holotype; E. E. oryzae (Pagden); F. E. rubripes (André); G. E. saussurei (Lelej); H. Trogaspidia vallicola Tsuneki, holotype.