Elampus aequinoctialis Ducke, 1901

Lucena, Daercio A. A., Santos-Neto, Pedro E., Zanella, Fernando C. V. & Almeida, Eduardo A. B., 2022, Taxonomic review of the elampine cuckoo wasps from northeastern Brazil (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae), with the description of three new species, Zootaxa 5213 (3), pp. 201-235 : 204-206

Elampus aequinoctialis Ducke, 1901 sp. resurr.

( Figs 1 , 2A–D )

Ellampus (!) (Notozus) aequinoctialis Ducke 1901: 359 .

Lectotype ♀, designated by Lucena & Gomes 2016: 560. BRAZIL, Pará, 25.vii.1901, A. Ducke (MPEG: examined).

Elampus aequinoctialis (Ducke) ; Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 166.

Elampus gayi Spinola ; Ducke 1911: 97; Ducke: 1913: 13; Lucena & Gomes 2016: 556 (partim, synonymy with E. aequinoctialis ).

Diagnosis. Metasomal terga with narrow translucent border along lateral margins; scapal basin smooth; dorsum of head, mesosoma and metasoma with sparse sculpturing; metanotum somewhat truncated posteriorly, broader than long; tarsal claw with two subsidiary teeth. Elampus aequinoctialis Ducke closely resembles E. gayi Spinola. These species are almost identical, even comparing geographically distant samples. They can be distinguished based on the sparser sculpturing on vertex, pronotum, scutum, and disc of T2–T3 of E. aequinoctialis ( Fig. 2A–D ). Additionally, E. aequinoctialis is comparatively shorter than E. gayi (on average 3.6 vs. 4.4 mm).

Material examined. Lectotype ♀. BRAZIL, Pará: 25.vii.1901, A. Ducke ( MPEG 11062003 ). Bahia: Jequié, campus UESB II, 20.xi.2006, Silva-Júnior J. C. & cols. ( CEDU-UNILA: 1♀). Ceará: Baturité, Ducke ( MPEG: 1♀). Minas Gerais: Passa Quatro, 1904, Wagner S. ( MPEG: 1♀). São Gonçalo do Rio das Pedras, 1903, Wagner S. R. ( MPEG: 1♀). Santa Vitória, ii.1970, Oliveira F. H. ( AMNH: 1♀). Santa Catarina: Seara [Nova Teutonia], 10.ii.1948, Fritz P. ( USNM: 2♀). Same data as preceding, except: 29.ii.1948 ( USNM: 1♀); 07.ii.1948 ( AMNH: 1♂). São Paulo: Itirapina, Estação Ecológica de Itirapina , 20–22.xii.2016, Tavares, Porto, Lucena, Gibran & Yoshida ( RPSP: 2♀ 1♂). Same data as preceding, except: 26–28.xi.2016, Almeida, Porto, Lucena, Gibran & Yoshida ( RPSP: 2♀ 1♂). Luiz Antônio, Estação Ecológica de Jataí , 19.xii.2007, Perioto N. W. ( RPSP: 1♀). Same data as preceding, except: 16.i.2008 ( RPSP: 2♀). Teodoro Sampaio, 20.i.2012, Lopes P. R. ( RPSP: 1♀). Same data as preceding, except: 18.ii.2012 ( RPSP: 3♀ 1♂).

Distribution. BRAZIL (Bahia, Ceará, Minas Gerais, Pará, Santa Catarina, São Paulo) ( Fig. 3 ).

Host. Unknown.

Remarks. Elampus aequinoctialis and E. gayi are readily distinguished from other South American species by the shape and the development of metanotum, scapal basin lacking transverse striae, metasomal terga with narrow translucent rim, tarsal claw with two subsidiary teeth, and the shape of apical T3( Lucena &Gomes 2016).Additionally, distinguishing the genders of E. aequinoctialis and E. gayi without extracting the genitalia is challenging. Some females can be easily recognized if the metasomal tube composed of the internalized terga (“ovipositor”) is exserted. However, if only the tip of the metasomal tube is visible, this structure can be confused with the partly exserted male genitalia and vice versa (see comments below for E. gayi ). According to our interpretation, E. gayi corresponds to the records in central Chile and Argentina, with the recognition of E. aequinoctialis as a distinct species exclusive to Brazil ( Fig. 3 ). The records for E. aequinoctialis in northeastern Brazil do not imply that this species occurs in the Caatinga biome, since two recorded sites represent distinct habitats: an evergreen Semidecidual forest “Brejo de altitude” in Baturité, Ceará state; and a transition zone between caatinga xerophilous vegetation and semidecidual evergreen forest in Jequié, Bahia state ( Westerkamp et al. 2007, Lucena et al. 2012, 2021).

Here we adopt the form of writing the species name as follows: Elampus aequinoctialis Ducke, 1901 . Kimsey & Bohart (1991: 166) listed this species as Elampus aequinoctialis ( Ducke, 1901) , with parentheses enclosing the author and publication year to indicate the change in the generic combination. We follow Article 51.3.1 of the Code, which states that “parentheses are not used when the species-group name was originally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name” (ICZN 1999). Our interpretation also applies to Elampus pulchricollis Ducke, 1911 , as would apply to any other species-group names combined with an incorrectly spelled genus-group name. The historical controversy surrounding this genus name shall be addressed in future research with this taxon because it exceeds the scope of this work.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype female of Ellampus (!) (Notozus) aequinoctialis Ducke, 1901 [MPEG], designed by Lucena & Gomes (2016). A. Habitus, lateral left view; B. Metasoma, lateral left view; C. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars: 1 mm.

FIGURE 2. Comparative images of two South American Elampus (females). A–D: E. aequinoctialis Ducke. E–H: E. gayi Spinola. A, E. Dorsal view of head; B, F. Dorsal view of pronotum and scutum; C, G. Dorsal view of T2; D, H. Dorsal view of T3. Scale bars: 0.2 mm (A, D, E, H) 0.5 mm (B, C, F, G).

FIGURE 3. Geographical distribution of two South American Elampus (left); individual records for each species shown on the maps on the right.