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.