Lasiochalcidia rubripes (Kieffer, 1899),

Falahatpisheh, Ali, Fallahzadeh, Majid, Dousti, Abu Fazel & Delvare, Gérard, 2018, Review of Iranian Chalcididae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) with nomenclatural notes, Zootaxa 4394 (2), pp. 251-269: 260-261

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Lasiochalcidia rubripes (Kieffer, 1899)


Lasiochalcidia rubripes (Kieffer, 1899) 

Euchalcis rubripes  KIEFFER, 1899: 369. Original description ♀. France, Corsica; Masi 1916: 56–57. ITALY, GIgLIO ISLAND. Lasiochalcidia rubripes  (KIEFFER): MASI 1929A: 209; BOUčEk 1949: 144; STEFFAN 1951b: 76; BOUčEk 1956: 246; STEFFAN 1966: 405–406.

Material examined. Type material. Not found in MNHN. Other material. IRAN: Fars, Larestan, Nime, loc. 6, 12.i.2112, (1 ♀) (in CIRAD: GDEL 359).

Comment. The type of E. rubripes  is apparently lost because it could not be traced in any of the European Museums visited by GD. Unfortunately, the original description is unreliable for discriminating the species. It was firstly synonymized with L. cincticornis (Walker)  by Steffan (1951b). Later, Bouček (1956) and Steffan (1966) recognized the two names as belonging to two different species. However, it seemed for some time that L. rubripes  might be a junior synonym of L. cincticornis (Walker)  because the two species were described from Corsica. A specimen, housed in MNHN, from the same island and identified as such by Steffan, can be taken as a reference for this latter species, the type of L. cincticornis  being also lost. A specimen identified by Masi as E. rubripes  , morphologically different from L. cincticornis  , and housed in MCSN, would have been taken as reference for E. rubripes  but it was collected in the island of Giglio (Masi 1916). Quite recently another female, morphologically identical with that identified by Masi, and here collected in Corsica (at Galéria), was found in the Bouček collection (in NMP). Hence, two different species actually inhabit Corsica and Masi's interpretation of the species is correct.

Bouček (1956) and Steffan (1966) used the relative length of the syntergum for separating the females of L. rubripes  and L. cincticornis  but this character proved to be unreliable. The relative length of the basal flagellomeres, which is longer in the first species, is a better character. Furthermore, examination of the Bouček collection housed in the Prague Museum, proved that this author wrongly associated the two sexes. Actually the male of L. rubripes  , not that of L. cinticornis  , has a ventral tooth on the scape.

Distribution. From the specimens examined by GD, the species is widely distributed in the Mediterranean Basin including Morocco, Spain, southern France, Italy and Egypt. This is a new record for the Iranian fauna. Hosts. Unknown.


Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle


Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection


Centre de Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement


Museo Civico di Storia Naturale "Giacomo Doria"


Natal Museum