Maurilloides Pitts & Shimizu, 2021
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1111/aen.12530 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4627899 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E087EE-FFF2-3C78-CAFB-E2AFFADBD8DD |
|
treatment provided by |
Tatiana |
|
scientific name |
Maurilloides Pitts & Shimizu |
| status |
gen. nov. |
Maurilloides Pitts & Shimizu , gen. nov.
http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:769CC31C-E27E- 41DF-8381-BF1C0FAA1FE5
Type species: Maurilloides nigrisoma Pitts & Shimizu sp. nov. (here designated).
Diagnosis
This genus differs from other genera of the Australian ‘Ctenocerini’ sensu Evans (1972) by the unique combination of the following female features: clypeus much narrower than lower frons, truncate apically ( Fig. 3a View Fig ); labrum fully exserted, sometimes bent backward at right angle to clypeus; lower frons laterally to antennal sockets deeply depressed; vertex moderately convex between eye tops, its upper margin chevron-shaped in frontal view; scape slightly produced apicomedially but not attaining apical margin of pedicel, with medial face flattened, smooth and polished and lateral face slightly concave ( Fig. 3b–d View Fig ); gena, in dorsal view, thinner than in Maurillus , gently receding posteriorly ( Fig. 3b View Fig ); pronotum with anterior face vertical, flattened and polished, forming right angle with dorsum ( Fig. 3e View Fig ), anterior margin of pronotal dorsum convex in dorsal view, not tuberculate submedially, barely depressed medially ( Fig. 3b View Fig ); and tarsal claws cleft ( Fig. 3f View Fig ), the condition being unique tothe Australian ‘Ctenocerini’ sensu Evans (1972).
Description
Female
Head wider than high. Vertex with posterior margin shallowly and broadly emarginate in dorsal view ( Fig. 3c View Fig ). Distance from eye tops to vertex crest, in lateral view, less than tenth of eye height ( Fig. 3e View Fig ). Frons notverybroad (MID/TFD <0.6); upper frons flattened and polished ( Fig. 3a View Fig ); lower frons, in middle, sloping downward between antennal sockets. Ocellar triangle very flat ( Fig. 3b View Fig ). Posterior ocelli at level of eye tops ( Fig. 3a View Fig ). Clypeus slightly depressed sublaterally, convex medially; lateral margin nearly vertical; apicolateral corner broadly rounded. Labrum with apical margin barely convex. Malar space very short. Mandible stout with small tooth removed from apical point on inner margin. Antenna short and slender. Gena not very thick, in profile gently narrowing above and below ( Fig. 3e View Fig ). Uppermost portion of occipital suture situated slightly below vertex crest ( Fig. 3c View Fig ). Occiput not very large, compared with in Maurillus ( Figs 1g View Fig and 3c View Fig ).
Pronotal dorsum with anterior margin convex in dorsal view ( Fig. 3b View Fig ); shoulder slightly swollen. Mesoscutum flattened, with posterolateral margin not reflexed. Discs of scutellum and metanotum flattened at same level as mesoscutum. Propodeum short and rugose on both dorsum and declivity ( Fig. 3g View Fig ); declivity completely flattened for reception of anterior face of T1, longer than dorsum, separated from dorsum by blunt carina.
Fore femur slightly thinner than mid femur. Dorsal apex of fore tibia with short stout decurved spines interiorly and exteriorly. Fore tarsomeres 2–4 combined much shorter than fore tarsomere 1. Mid and hind tibiae with short spines in three rows dorsally and ivory-white spurs. Tarsomere 5 of all legs beneath without spines.
Fore wing crossvein cu-a originating distal to point of separation of vein M + CuA, very oblique to vein A ( Fig. 3h View Fig ).
Metasoma not short, slightly broader than mesosoma ( Fig. 3i View Fig ). T1 abruptly narrowing anteriorly; anterior face vertical and flat, fitting against propodeal declivity ( Fig. 3j View Fig ). Transverse groove on S2 distinctly impressed at about basal third. T6 with several long stiff bristles. S6 slightly compressed laterally without median carina.
Male
Unknown.
Distribution
Australia.
Etymology
The generic name is derived from a morphological similarity to Maurillus . The name is considered masculine in gender.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.