Eupelmus Dalman

Gibson, Gary A. P., 2011, 2951, Zootaxa 2951, pp. 1-97 : 7-8

Eupelmus Dalman

Eupelmus Dalman, 1820: 136 , 180. Type species: Eupelmus memnonius Dalman. Subsequently designated by Westwood, 1839: 72.

Macroneura Walker, 1837: 353−354 . Type species: Macroneura maculipes Walker (= Ichneumon vesicularis Retzius ), by monotypy. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 204.

Macronevra ; Blanchard, 1840: 273. Misspelling of genus name.

Holceupelmus Cameron, 1905: 316−317 . Type species: Holceupelmus bifasciatus Cameron , by monotypy. Synonymy by Bouček, 1976: 353.

Charitopella Crosby, 1909: 85 . Type species: Charitopella setigera Crosby , by monotypy. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198.

Bruchocida Crawford, 1913: 245−246 . Type species: Bruchocida vuilleti Crawford , by original designation. Synonymy by Bouček, 1988: 559.

Episolindelia Girault, 1914: 23 . Type species: Episolindelia varicolor Girault (= Roptrocerus testaceiventris Motschulsky ), by original designation. Synonymy by Girault, 1915: 2.

Lindesonius Brèthes, 1916: 419 . Type species: Lindesonius cecidiptae Brèthes , by monotypy. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198, 203.

Rafa Brèthes, 1916: 420 . Type species: Rafa albitarsis Brèthes , by original designation. Synonymy by De Santis, 1971: 57, 59.

Charitopodinus Bridwell, 1918: 486−487 . Type species: Eupelmus swezeyi Crawford , by original designation. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198.

Eupelmella Masi, 1919: 306−307 . Type species: Eupelmus degeeri Dalman (= Ichneumon vesicularis Retzius ), by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198.

Lepideupelmus Timberlake, 1926: 28 . Type species: Eupelmus setiger Perkins , by original designation. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198.

Neosolindenia Gourlay, 1928: 370 . Type species: Neosolindenia cyanea Gourlay , by monotypy. Synonymy by Bouček, 1988: 559.

Propelma Trjapitzin, 1963: 89−91 . Type species: † Propelma rohdendorfii Trjapitzin , by monotypy and original designation (Baltic amber inclusion). Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198.

Macroneura (Euronmacra) Kalina, 1981: 92 , 102. Type species: Eupelmus schmiedeknechti Ruschka , by original designation. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198.

Cocceupelmus Kalina, 1984: 14−16 . Type species: Cocceupelmus ceroplastae Kalina , by monotypy and original designation. Synonymy by Gibson, 1995: 198.

Eupelmus (Episolindelia) ; Gibson, 1995: 201. Change of status.

Eupelmus (Eupelmus) ; Gibson, 1995: 202. Change of status.

Eupelmus (Macroneura) ; Gibson, 1995: 204. Change of status.

Remarks. Females and males of Eupelmus can be differentiated from those of other genera of Eupelminae using the respective keys in Gibson (1995). Within North America , females are distinguished by the following combination of features: mesotibia apically without groove between tibial spur and base of tarsus ( Figs 18, 19, 32, 33; Gibson 1995, figs 332−335); apical tergum (syntergum) of gaster with posterior margin deeply, omega-like (Ω) emarginate, and extremely short dorsally anterior to emargination ( Gibson 1995, figs 321−324); penultimate tergum (Gt6) divided dorsolongitudinally by at least a hyaline line and usually partly or completely concealed under posteriorly projecting Gt5 ( Gibson 1995, figs 321−324); prepectus with frontal surface sensu Gibson (1986) yellow (Figs 42−44). Macropterous females also often have a linea calva (Fig. 8: lc) and obviously exserted ovipositor sheaths that usually are banded, either being dark basally and light apically (e.g. Figs 4, 22) or, more commonly, dark-light-dark (e.g. Figs 5, 24, 34−41).

Regional males of Eupelmus are distinguished primarily by having a broad, oblique bare region (speculum) that is contiguous with the basal fold and parastigma to the base of the marginal vein ( Gibson 1995, fig. 491). Males of most species also have a longitudinal line of several long, distally curved setae ventrally on the pedicel (Figs 55, 57, 64–66), and one long seta near the base of the mandible below the malar sulcus (Figs 64, 67, 69; Gibson 1995, figs 403, 404). However, the latter two features are not possessed by males of E. (Episolindelia) australiensis (Girault) (Fig. 6), E. (Episolindelia) rubicola (Ashmead) (Figs 7, 56) or E. (Macroneura) meteori (Gahan) in North America .

Gibson (1990: 843) discussed color, sculpture and structural features to help differentiate males of E. ( Macroneura ) from those of E. ( Eupelmus ), but as is evident from the key below no single feature adequately distinguishes males of the subgenera and the subgenera themselves almost certainly represent a grade of structure rather than monophyletic lineages. Eupelmus (Episolindelia) comprises what appears to be a comparatively basal group of species whose females retain various symplesiomorphic features of the metanotal-propodeal complex and mesotibial and mesotarsal pegs, whereas E. ( Macroneura ) is restricted to species with brachypterous females having an apomorphic metanotal structure. Consequently, E. ( Macroneura ) may be monophyletic, but the three subgenera probably represent a nested paraphyletic series.