Caenochrysis invisa (Linsenmaier, 1984) stat. resurr.

(Figs 1D–F)

Chrysis (Trichrysis) invisa Linsenmaier, 1984: 210 . Holotype ♀; Argentina: Tucuman (NMLU, examined). Synonym of Caenochrysis armata (Mocsáry, 1889) according to Kimsey & Bohart (1991: 301); Lucena et al. (2024: 16).

Caenochrysis invisa (Linsenmaier, 1984): present paper: stat. resurr.

Material examined. Holotype of Chrysis invisa, ♀: Argentinien I.53 S.P. Colalao Tucuman Coll. Linsenmaier / NML_ENT GBIF_Chr0041155 (NMLU). Paratypes: 2♀♀: same data / NML_ENT GBIF_Chr0041152-41153 (NMLU); 1♀: Argentina: Tuc. Horco Molle, c. 12km. W of Tucuman. 700m 17.III.1974 C.R. Vardy B.M. 1974-204 / NML_ENT GBIF_ Chr 0041154 (NMLU).

Both Chrysis invisa Linsenmaier, 1984 and Chr. aptata Linsenmaier, 1984 were synonymized with Caenochrysis armata (Mocsáry, 1889) . However, Linsenmaier’s (1984) description of Cae. invisa and its type material does not match the description of Cae. armata, nor specimens identified as Cae. armata by Ducke and deposited at European collections. In particular, compared to the diagnosis of Cae. armata given above under Cae. aptata, Cae. invisa has the first flagellomere 1.4 × as long as the second (Fig. 1D); the transverse frontal carina is weak, concolorous with the rest of the head, and irregularly arched with two short, barely visible branches (Fig. 1D); the metasoma is uniformly green to blue, with a narrow dark black stripe at the base of the first and second terga (Fig. 1E); the metasomal punctation is dense and uniform, with small punctures covering the entire tergum (Fig. 1E). Caenochrysis invisa can also be distinguished from Cae. aptata as detailed above under Cae. aptata . Based on these characters, we consider Caenochrysis invisa (Linsenmaier, 1984) stat. resurr. a valid species.