Enicospilus ahngeri ( Kokujev, 1907 )

Johansson, Niklas, Ameri, Ali, Riedel, Matthias, Talebi, Ali Asghar & Ebrahimi, Ebrahim, 2021, Contribution to the Ophioninae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) of Iran with the description of 16 new species and an illustrated key to the Eremotylus of the Western Palaearctic, Zootaxa 5023 (2), pp. 151-206 : 155-156

Enicospilus ahngeri ( Kokujev, 1907)

Figs 2A–D

Henicospilus ahngeri Kokujev, 1907:8–9 . Lectotype ♀ from Russia in ZIN, examined.

Enicospilus captivus Shestakov, 1926: 29–30 . Lectotype ♂ from Iran in ZIN, examined.

Enicospilus affectatus Shestakov, 1926:28 (?). Lectotype ♀ from Iran in ZIN, examined.

Material examined: IRAN: Lectotype ♂ of Enicospilus captivus , Persia or, Seistan, Chousdar ad stationem Nasrabad 3 IX, 1898. N. Zarudnyi leg. ( ZIN); 1♀, Khoransan Province , 10 km S of Sabzevar, Hares-Abad , 15 Jun. 1977, 940 m. a. s., Pazuki / Abai leg. ( HMIM); 1♀, Khorasan Province, Taibad, 19 Aug. 1993, 650 m. a. s., Ebra / Badii leg. ( HMIM); 1♀, Kerman Province, 8 km N. of Bardsir, 29˚95"N, 56˚58"E, 2500 m. a. s., 6 Jun. 2010, Mi. Halada leg. ( OÖLM); 1♂ Iran, Yazd (Jasd), 40 km SSW Harat, Baque-Shad , 29˚48"N, 54˚18"E, 2100 m. a. s., 1–2 Jun. 2005, C. Holzschuh leg. ( OÖLM).

Remarks: Enicospilus ahngeri is a species that seem to have often been misinterpreted, but it is quite easily distinguished from similar species by the large and relatively scarce punctures of mesosternum, the narrow face and temples of the female as well as the entirely absent central sclerite in the fore wing. The male holotype of E. captivus Shestakov, 1926 has been studied by the first author and represents a male specimen of E. ahngeri and the synonymy between the two species is hereby confirmed. Enicospilus tarsalis Hedwig, 1957 have previously been listed as a synonym of E. ahngeri ( Yu et al. 2016) , but is in fact a junior synonym of E. cruciator Viktorov (see Remarks E. cruciator ).

The type of Enicospilus affectatus Shestakov, 1926 (p. 28) ( Fig. 1A–C ) collected in Iran was synonymized with E. ahngeri by Viktorov, 1957. The det. label ( Fig. 1D ) on the female holotype in ZIN states “ Enicospilus ahngeri var.” in Viktorovs handwriting, indicating that he regarded it as a variety without the extensive pale markings typical of the species. Apart from the obvious difference in colour with the nominate species, we have not been able to find any other characters separating the two taxa at present stage. It is possible that E. affectatus is indeed a valid species, separated from E. ahngeri , but more material needs to be studied before any definitive conclusion can be made. The male of E. ahngeri , depicted and listed in Amiri et al. (2016) Fig. 1A–C is a specimen of E. unicallosus (Vollenhoven, 1878) .

DNA Barcode: The DNA barcode sequences of two specimen of Enicospilus ahngeri are available at the BOLD systems database: sample id. NJP734/746, sequence id. LNU2582-21/2570-21.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Enicospilus affinis Hedwig, 1957 stat. rev., holotype ♀ (SMNS). A) Habitus, lateral view; B) head, anterior view; C) labels; D) alar sclerites,; E) habitus, dorsal view. Photos: Hege Vårdal.

FIGURE 2. Enicospilus affectatus Shestakov, 1926, lectotype ♀ (ZIN).A) Habitus, lateral view; B) head, anterior view; C) alar sclerites; D) labels. Photos: Andrey Khalaim.