Choeras Mason, 1981

Moghaddam, Mostafa Ghafouri, Rakhshani, Ehsan, Achterberg, Cornelis Van & Mokhtari, Azizollah, 2018, A study of the Iranian species of Choeras Mason (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae), with the description of a new species, Zootaxa 4446 (4), pp. 455-476 : 457-458

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4446.4.3
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:914DEC27-3729-4988-9175-A571786810BA
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5954913
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/DB23A22F-FFCC-FFD4-FF5C-F989FCFDCADA
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Choeras Mason, 1981
status

Treatment

Choeras Mason, 1981

[ Figs 2–8 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 View FIGURE 5 View FIGURE 6 View FIGURE 7 View FIGURE 8 ]

Choeras Mason, 1981: 76 (description). Type species: Apanteles (Pseudapanteles) consimilis Viereck, 1911: 177 View in CoL , by original designation, Holotype ♀ — Long Island, New York, USA [USNM]

Specimens examined. Apanteles consimilis View in CoL , 1 ♀ and 1 ♂ (HNHM): ♀, CANADA, Gatineau Park, QUE (45°30′N, 75°48′E, 134 m), 2.vi.1968, Ex. Polyporus betulinus , leg.: D. P. Pielou (A–42), Det. W. R. M. Mason, ♂, same data label, 9.vi.1966 (G–136).

Diagnosis. Fore wing with veins r-m and 3RSa more or less present, resulting in a more or less closed areolet, veins r and 2Rs usually straight, vannal lobe in hind wing usually convex and setose, but occasionally flat or even concave and glabrous ( Figs 3F View FIGURE 3 , 5F–5G View FIGURE 5 , 6B View FIGURE 6 , 8F View FIGURE 8 ); Apical antennal flagellomeres with distinct setosity but in some species smooth and shiny, either longer than wide or moniliform ( Figs 2B View FIGURE 2 , 4B View FIGURE 4 , 7B View FIGURE 7 ), scape swollen, touching each other or normal and separated ( Figs 2D View FIGURE 2 , 4D View FIGURE 4 , 7D View FIGURE 7 ). Pronotum with both upper and lower groove present, notauli scarcely traceable, scutellar sulcus continuous ( Figs 3A View FIGURE 3 , 5A View FIGURE 5 , 6E View FIGURE 6 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ), propodeum with a strong medio-longitudinal carina, never with an indication of a complete areola, surface smooth to coarsely rugose, mesoscutum smooth posteriorly ( Figs 3B View FIGURE 3 , 5B View FIGURE 5 , 6E View FIGURE 6 , 8B View FIGURE 8 ); T1 typically with rather straight lateral margins (parallel-sided) or apically tapered and broad with a shallow basal excavation, latero-tergites usually visible from above, T2 strongly transverse and rectangular but sometimes subtriangular, broadly pentagonal or very broad, almost linear and sides often sloping, sculpture of T1 and T2 variable, varies from smooth to densely rugose. T3 smooth and longer than T2 ( Figs 3C–3D View FIGURE 3 , 5C–5D View FIGURE 5 , 6D, 6F View FIGURE 6 , 8C–8D View FIGURE 8 ); Ovipositor and its sheath long, setose part of ovipositor sheath about half as long as hind tibia or a little longer, hypopygium medially desclerotized and folded, visible as several striate ( Figs 3E View FIGURE 3 , 5E View FIGURE 5 , 8E View FIGURE 8 ), but evenly sclerotized medially and no medio-ventral crease as in C. validus (Thomson, 1895) . Length of femur, tibia, basitarsus and tibial spur of hind leg are variable ( Figs 2C View FIGURE 2 , 4C View FIGURE 4 , 7C View FIGURE 7 ).