Aneuropria Kieffer, 1905

Chemyreva, Vasilisa G., Kolyada, Victor A. & Ku, Deok-Seo, 2025, Review of the Palaearctic species of the genera Aneuropria Kieffer, 1905 and Labolips Förster, 1856 (Hymenoptera, Diapriidae) with description of a new species from South Korea and Japan, Zootaxa 5715 (1), pp. 119-136 : 120-121

Genus Aneuropria Kieffer, 1905

Aneuropria Kieffer, 1905: 35 .

Pezopria Kieffer, 1910: 697 . Synonymized by Masner & Sundholm (1959).

Mantara Dodd, 1920: 379 . Synonymized by Notton (2014).

Valia Alekseev, 1979: 617 . Syn. nov.

Type species Aneuropria clavata Kieffer, 1911 (= Polypeza foersteri Kieffer, 1910 ), first included species.

Genus diagnosis. Small to medium-sized ( 1–3 mm) individuals; body color predominantly deep black with appendages lighter, predominantly smooth, highly shining, with relatively little pilosity (but with dense silvery pilosity on petiole and propodeum, with some hairy cushions, but without foamy structures); labrum subtriangular, exposed, sclerotized; oral carina strongly developed permitting movement of mandible only along vertical axis; mandible long, almost flat, bidentate, distinctly projecting backward (opisthognathous), its upper condyles much closer to each other than the lower ones and axes connected the upper and lower condyles of each mandibles not parallel ( Figs 2D , 6B , 8A ); A1 unarmed, without apical flaps; A 4 in male not modified; median keel of propodeum simple ( Fig. 1A ) to reduced; plica strongly developed, projecting posteriorly, almost bladelike; posterior margin of propodeum between plicae deeply excavate; anterior margin of T2 not notched medially or laterally and bare; anterior margin of S2 with grooves like depression laterally and median depression with short notch at the bottom ( Figs 2G , 7B, D ); belytoid line absent.

Remarks. In 2014, Notton proposed to consider the monotypic genus Mantara as a junior synonym of the genus Aneuropria . Unfortunately, he did not provide any evidence to support this suggestion. Nevertheless, M. dentata is indeed extremely similar to the species of the genus Aneuropria and differs from the latter mainly in its more pronounced reductions (complete fusion of the mesonotum and scutellum with each other, reduction of tegulae and all structures on the mesonotum and scutellum). However, if we accept Notton's proposal, then the monotypic genus Valia , with the single species V. dentata , should also be considered a junior synonym of Aneuropria , since it also differs from the genus Aneuropria only in the reduction of some features and is extremely similar to the species Mantara bifurcata .

The diagnosis of Aneuropria suggested above is a modified and supplemented version of that given by Masner & García (2002). All the additions made are mainly related to the proposed generic synonymy and, consequently, a broader interpretation of the genus. All species currently considered to be part of the genus Aneuropria , as well as Valia dentata correspond to the proposed diagnosis, with the exception of the species Aneuropria nilgiriensis Sharma, 1979 ( Fig. 1 ). Many features mentioned in the original description (frons between eyes with sharp projections, apical rim of A1 with sharp flaps and aditional sharp projection medially, median propodeal carina replaced by inverted V-shaped carina, T2 with deep and long median cleft ( Fig. 1B )) and confirmed by studying the type material do not agreed with the Aneuropria characters but correspond with diagnosis of Coptera Say , which was given by Masner & García (2002). Thereby the new combination Coptera nilgiriensis ( Sharma, 1979) comb. nov. is proposed here.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Non-palaearctic Aneuropria species; A—A. kairali Rajmohana et Narendran, female (available at https://databases. nbair.res.in/Diapriinae/Aneuropria.php); B—A. nilgiriensis Sharma, male; C—A. kilimandjaroi Kieffer, female (photo by Claire Villemant). Red arrows—features are not agreed with the diagnosis of Aneuropria.

FIGURE 2. Aneuropria bifurcata (Dodd), female, paratype.A, C—whole wasp in dorsal (A) and lateral (C) views; B—paratype labels; D–F—head and mesosoma in ventral (D), lateral (E) and dorsal (F) views; G—metasoma in ventral view. Scale bars: 0.5 mm (A, C); 0.2 mm (D–G).

FIGURE 6. Aneuropria dentata (Alekseev), male; A—head and mesosoma in dorsal view; B—face; C—metasoma in dorsal view; D—apex of metasoma in lateral view; E—head and mesosoma in lateral view; F—whole body in lateral view. Scale bars: 1.0 mm (F); 0.5 mm (A, C, E); 0.3 mm (D); 0.2 mm (B).

FIGURE 7. Aneuropria dentata (Alekseev) (A, B) and A. foersteri (Kieffer) (C−G), males (A−D) and female (F, G); A, C— antennae in lateral view; B, D—metasoma in ventral view; E—habitus in lateral view; F, G—female antenna in dorsal (F) and lateral (G) views. Scale bars: 1.0 mm (E); 0.5 mm (A, C); 0.3 mm (B, D, F).

FIGURE 8. Aneuropria foersteri (Kieffer), female, non-type specimen: A—face; B—head and mesosoma in dorsal view; C, D—mesosoma and petiole in dorsal (C) and lateral (D) views; E—whole body in lateral view; F—head and mesosoma in lateral view; G—apex of metasoma in lateral view. Scale bars: 1.0 mm (E); 0.3 mm (A−D, F, G).