Genus Centeterichneumon Heinrich, 1938

Centeterichneumon Heinrich, 1938: 129 . Type species: Centeterichneumon denticoxatus Heinrich, 1938, by original designation and monotypy.

Diagnosis

According to Heinrich (1938: 22) the genus Centeterichneumon is characterized by having “ Clypéus largement arrondi. Spiracules du propodéum ovales chez les grands exemplaires, ronds chez les petits. Hanches III avec une petite dent chez la ♀ [= Clypeus broadly rounded. Propodeum spiracles oval in large specimens, round in small ones. Coxae III with a small tooth in ♀].” However, Heinrich’s (1938) diagnosis is insufficient to separate Centeterichneumon from the other Afrotropical genera. We hereby attempt a more in-depth diagnosis of the genus. Centeterichneumon can be distinguished from all the other genera by the following combination of characters: (1) bidentate mandibles (that sets Centeterichneumon apart from Lusius and Heterischnus); (2) presence of distinct gastrocoeli, even though superficial (that allows the separation from Arearia, Chauvinia, Dicaelotus, and Hoplophaeogenes); (3) non-modified hypostomal carina, meeting occipital carina at the base of mandible (modified in Aethecerus and meeting occipital carina above mandibular base in Tycherus); (4) 2 nd metasomal tergite roughly square (and not elongated as in Kibalus); (5) clypeus well-separated from face (epistomal sulcus present) (that allows a clear separation from Diadromus); (6) malar space less than 0.5× as long as the mandible (different from Diadromus); (7) hind coxae of female with a ventral tooth or small carina.

Remarks

The genus Centeterichneumon was introduced by Heinrich (1938: 129) to accommodate only one species from Madagascar, Centeterichneumon denticoxatus Heinrich, 1938, later divided into two subspecies, the nominotypical one and C. denticoxatus obscutatus Heinrich, 1938 .

Except for the original type series, no other records have been reported for the genus. Townes & Townes (1973) provided a catalogue to the species with no new information on the distribution, while Rousse et al. (2013) failed to include the taxon into their review of the Afrotropical Phaeogenini . The species hereby newly described represents the first record of the genus after its original conception and expands its distribution for the first time to mainland Africa (Figs 5A–B, 8A–B).