Spaniopus Walker, 1833
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4058.1.2 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B316C84C-7415-449F-9ABF-5DD600556844 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6113666 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AD5B42-FFB5-FFC7-6893-FB11FB61EF85 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Spaniopus Walker, 1833 |
status |
|
Spaniopus Walker, 1833 View in CoL View at ENA
Spaniopus Walker, 1833: 466 View in CoL . Type species: Spaniopus dissimilis Walker, 1833 View in CoL , by monotypy (♂ lectotype, BMNH, examined).
Polycelis Thomson, 1878: 131 , 143. Type species: Pteromalus conspersus Walker, 1835 View in CoL , designated by Ashmead, 1904: 386 (♀ lectotype, BMNH, not examined). Junior primary homonym of Polycelis Ehrenberg, 1831 ( Seriata , Planariidae ) ( Dalla Torre 1897: 87). Synonymy by Graham (1969: 702).
Neopolycelis Hincks, 1944: 38 . Replacement name for Polycelis Thomson, 1878 . Synonymy by Graham (1969: 703).
Diagnosis. Body colour dark metallic green to blush-green or blush-purple and often with diffuse coppery lustre; fore wing often with brownish cloud or patches. Sides of propodeum hairy, pilosity not reaching base of nucha (e.g. Figs 4 View FIGURES 1 – 6 , 12 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 18 View FIGURES 13 – 18 ); first metasomal tergite with small patch of hairs (e.g. Figs 2 View FIGURES 1 – 6 , 8 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 48 View FIGURES 46 – 52 , 54 View FIGURES 53 – 58 ). Head and mesosoma distinctly reticulate; clypeus radially striate; nucha of propodeum strongly reticulate; metasoma smooth and shiny (e.g. Figs 14 View FIGURES 13 – 18 , 19 View FIGURES 19 – 24 , 25 View FIGURES 25 – 31 , 38 View FIGURES 32 – 39 ). Head of female (e.g. Figs 8 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 20 View FIGURES 19 – 24 ) in dorsal view 2.0–2.2× as broad as long; scrobes absent; occiput without carina; lower margin of clypeus subemarginate (e.g. Figs 9 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 21 View FIGURES 19 – 24 , 55 View FIGURES 53 – 58 ). Antennae in both sexes 11263 (e.g. Figs 3 View FIGURES 1 – 6 , 10 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 24 View FIGURES 19 – 24 , 61 View FIGURES 59 – 66 ), inserted a little above level of lower edges of eyes (e.g. Figs 9 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 15 View FIGURES 13 – 18 , 21 View FIGURES 19 – 24 , 55 View FIGURES 53 – 58 ); both anelli transverse or second anellus subquadrate to quadrate; funicular segments in female longer than broad, subquadrate or transverse, with one row of dense sensilla; clava symmetric, usually not wider than funicular segments; funicular segments in male more elongate than in female or of different size and colouration (e.g. Figs 29 View FIGURES 25 – 31 , 43 View FIGURES 40 – 45 ). Mandibular formula 3:4 or rarely 4:4. Mesosoma usually moderately arched dorsally (e.g. Figs 1 View FIGURES 1 – 6 , 7 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 53 View FIGURES 53 – 58 ); pronotum without smooth and shiny carina; notauli incomplete; scutellum with noticeable but shallow frenal line. Propodeum with conspicuous subglobose nucha, plicae sinuate before constriction at nuchal base (e.g. Figs 4 View FIGURES 1 – 6 , 12 View FIGURES 7 – 12 , 35 View FIGURES 32 – 39 , 48 View FIGURES 46 – 52 ). Fore wing with basal cell bare or pilose, veins not thickened. Metasoma ovate or sublanceolate.
Distribution. Palaearctic and Nearctic.
Comments. For detailed discussion of the synonymy of Spaniopus , see Graham (1956: 250–251). Differences between Spaniopus and the similar genera Trichomalus Thomson, 1878 and Peridesmia Foerster, 1856 are given in the key of Bouček, Rasplus (1991).
Most species of Spaniopus have long fore wings that distinctly exceed the apex of the metasoma. However, some species, such as S. fulvicornis , are characterized by shortened fore wings. The length of the wings was used in some keys as the main feature for separating species ( Bouček 1972; Kamijo 1981) because wing-length variability within a single species was not realized. However, Huggert (1976) described wing-length variability for S. hedqvisti ( Figs 25, 26 View FIGURES 25 – 31 ), which suggests that wing-length may be variable for more species. We have not used this feature in our new identification key to species because of this possibility.
Sexual dimorphism in Spaniopus is exhibited in the different shape and colouration of the antennae ( Figs 29 View FIGURES 25 – 31 , 43 View FIGURES 40 – 45 , 66 View FIGURES 59 – 66 ), mid tibiae ( Figs 30 View FIGURES 25 – 31 , 42, 44 View FIGURES 40 – 45 , 65 View FIGURES 59 – 66 ) and metasoma in males and females of some species.
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 |
Spaniopus Walker, 1833
Tselikh, Ekaterina 2015 |
Neopolycelis
Graham 1969: 703 |
Polycelis
Graham 1969: 702 |
Ashmead 1904: 386 |
Dalla 1897: 87 |
Thomson 1878: 131 |
Spaniopus
Walker 1833: 466 |