Mimipodoryctes Belokobylskij, 2000

Belokobylskij, Sergey A. & Zaldívar-Riverón, Alejandro, 2021, Reclassification of the doryctine tribe Rhaconotini (Hymenoptera, Braconidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 741, pp. 1-168 : 69-71

Genus Mimipodoryctes Belokobylskij, 2000

Mimipodoryctes Belokobylskij, 2000: 348 .

Mimipodoryctes – Belokobylskij & Maeto 2006: 704; 2009: 305. — Yu et al. 2016. — Jasso-Martínez et al. 2019: 165.

Type species

Mimipodoryctes robustus Belokobylskij, 2000 (= Rhyssalus rubriceps Cameron, 1909 ).

Description ( Figs 24–25 )

HEAD. Head not depressed, transverse. Ocelli arranged in weakly obtuse triangle. Frons not concave, without median keel or furrow. Eyes glabrous. Occipital carina complete dorsally, joined below with hypostomal carina above base of mandible. Malar suture indistinct. Clypeal suture complete, deep laterally and shallow upper. Hypoclypeal depression medium-sized and subround. Postgenal bridge narrow. Palps long; maxillary palps 6-segmented, its sixth segment about as long as fifth segment; labial palps 4-segmented, its third segment not shortened. Scapus of antenna rather wide and long, without apical lobe and basal constriction; its ventral margin (lateral view) not longer than dorsal margin. First flagellar segment subcylindrical, almost straight, longer than second segment. Apical segment acuminate apically, without spine.

MESOSOMA. Mesosoma not depressed and rather long. Neck of prothorax rather short. Pronotum dorsally almost flat, with distinct submedian pronotal carina; pronope absent. Propleural dorsoposterior lobe rather long and wide. Mesonotum highly, gently and roundly elevated above pronotum; entirely distinctly rugose-granulate and entirely cover by dense setae. Median lobe of mesonotum without median longitudinal furrow and anterolateral corners. Notauli entirely rather deep, complete, densely and distinctly crenulate. Tegula widened distally, weakly convex along its posterior margin. Prescutellar depression long, rather deep, with several carinae. Lateral longitudinal wing-like flanges on level of prescutellar depression rather high. Scuto-scutellar suture distinct and complete. Scutellum weakly convex, with distinct lateral carinae at least in basal half. Metanotum with short, but distinct and subpointed median tooth or sometimes without it. Mesopleural pit deep, round, connected with mesopleural suture. Sternaulus (precoxal sulcus) rather deep, narrow, long, weakly curved, almost smooth. Prepectal carina distinct and complete, weakly widened below opposite fore coxae. Postpectal carina absent. Metapleural flange long, narrow and rounded apically, covered by very dense white setae. Propodeum with basolateral areas distinctly delineated by carinae, without areola; lateral tubercles small; propodeal bridge absent. Propodeal spiracles small and round.

WINGS. Pterostigma of fore wing wide. Radial vein (r) arising almost from middle of pterostigma. Radial (marginal) cell not shortened. Both radiomedial veins (2-SR, r-m) present. Second radiomedial (submarginal) cell rather short and wide. Recurrent vein (m-cu) postfurcal or sometimes almost interstitial. Discoidal (discal) cell petiolate anteriorly, petiole (1-SR) rather long; basal (1-M) and recurrent (m-cu) veins subparallel. Nervulus (cu-a) postfurcal. Brachial (subdiscal) cell rather strongly, obliquely and linearly closed apically distinctly behind recurrent vein (m-cu). Parallel vein (CU1a) not interstitial, arising almost from or slightly before or behind middle of brachial vein (CU1b). Transverse anal veins (2A, a) absent. Hind wing with three hamuli. Radial vein (SR) arising from costal vein (2-SC+R) distinctly far from basal vein (1r-m). Radial (marginal) cell subparallel in basal half and very weakly roundly narrowed toward apex, without additional transverse vein (r). Medial (basal) cell distinctly widened towards apex, 0.45–0.50 times as long as hind wing. Nervellus (cu-a) present. Submedial (subbasal) cell medium sized. First abscissa of mediocubital vein (M+CU) 0.6–0.9 times as long as second abscissa (1-M). Recurrent vein (m-cu) rather short, antefurcal, strongly oblique towards base of wing, weakly sclerotised.

LEGS. Fore and middle tibiae with rather dense short and thick spines arranged in narrow stripe. Middle tarsal segments rather short. Hind coxa rather short and wide, with distinct basoventral corner and tubercle. All femora with more or less distinct dorsal protuberances. Hind femur wide. Inner spur of hind tibia almost entirely shortly setose, about 0.3 times as long as hind basitarsus. Hind basitarsus 0.7–0.9 times as long as second–fifth segments combined. Claws short, thick and simple.

METASOMA. Metasoma with six (female) or seven (male) visible, coarsely sclerotised and sculptured tergites. First metasomal tergite not petiolate, wide, immovably fused with second tergite in female, not fused in male (see laterally). Acrosternite of first segment about 0.2 times as long as first tergite, its apical margin placed distinctly before spiracles. Dorsope of first tergite small but distinct; usually present short and rather wide basolateral lobes; spiracular tubercles indistinct, spiracles situated in basal third of tergite; dorsal carinae usually complete. Second suture distinct and deep. Second tergite with short or sometimes very short (almost indistinct) semi-oval basal area, with narrow apical area delineated anteriorly by fine furrow and different type of sculpture. Third tergite without transverse depression or furrow. Second–sixth tergites with separate laterotergites. Sixth tergite of female rather large, often with median emargination on posterior margin, longer than previous tergite, covered the following segments. Hypopygium small, obtuse medioposteriorly. Ovipositor shorter or longer than metasoma. Apical part of ovipositor with single or two small dorsal nodes and serrate ventrally.

Diagnosis

Mimipodoryctes Belokobylskij, 2000 is morphologically similar to Ipodoryctes Granger, 1949 but differs from the latter genus by having immovably fused first and second metasomal tergites in females. This genus differs from Arhaconotus Belokobylskij, 2000 , also having immovably fused first and second metasomal tergites, by parallel vein (CU1a) of fore wing not interstitial (vs interstitial), first and second tergites of male not fused immovably (vs fused in male), mesopleuron entirely densely pubescent (vs not entirely and sparsely setose), first abscissa of mediocubital vein (M+CU) of hind wing long (vs short), laterotergites entirely coved by long and dense setae (vs almost glabrous) and vertex and mesoscutum striate or rugose-granulate (vs usually granulate).

Composition

Mimipodoryctes korotyaevi (Belokobylskij, 1996) (OR) ; M. peregrinus (Belokobylskij, 1994) (OR) ; M. rokkoensis Belokobylskij & Maeto, 2006 (PA); M. rubriceps ( Cameron, 1909) (OR, AU) .

Hosts

Unknown.

Distribution

Australasian, Oriental and Palaearctic regions.

Remarks

Only one species of Mimipodoryctes was included in molecular phylogenetic study by Jasso-Martínez et al. (2019), whereas no specimens of Arhaconotus were examined. However, some morphological characters of these two genera suggest their close relationship.

A key to all described species Mimipodoryctes was published by Belokobylskij & Maeto (2009: 306).

Figures

Fig. 24. Mimipodoryctes rubriceps (Cameron, 1909), ♀, holotype of M. robustus Belokobylskij, 2000, ZISP. A. Habitus, lateral view. B. Head, front view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Fore tibia, lateral view. E. Apical segments of antenna. F. Basal segments of antenna. G. Head and mesosoma, lateral view. H. Mesosoma, dorsal view. I. Hind leg, lateral view. J. Apical metasomal tergites, dorsal view. K. First to third metasomal tergites, lateral view.

Fig. 25. Mimipodoryctes rubriceps (Cameron, 1909), ♀, holotype of M. robustus Belokobylskij, 2000, ZISP. A. Wings. B. Metasoma, dorsal view. C. Metasoma, lateral view.