Contribution to the knowledge of the genus Eopompilus Gussakovskij, 1932 (Hymenoptera, Pompilidae) Author Wahis, R. Author Lelej, A. S. Author Loktionov, V. M. text Far Eastern Entomologist 2018 2018-06-04 361 1 11 http://dx.doi.org/10.25221/fee.361.1 journal article 10.25221/fee.361.1 2713-2196 7164297 996A1F80-0F58-445F-A90F-17FAE79A2C9D Eopompilus himalayensis Wahis, Lelej et Loktionov , nom. n. Figs 1–19 Pompilus ichneumoniformis Cameron, 1897: 88 , ♀ ( holotype – ♀ , Mussouri [ India : Uttarakhand ], examined by R. Wahis [HEC]), nom. praeocc., nec Smith , 1864 (currently valid name in the genus Platydialepis Haupt, 1941 ), comb. n. ; nec Patton , 1879 (currently invalid name in the genus Poecilopompilus Howard, 1901 ). DIAGNOSIS. FEMALE. Body predominantly yellowish-brown ( Fig. 17–19 ). Wings light yellow; forewing with distinct apical fascia ( Fig. 19 ). Lateral margin of clypeus normal-shape, without concavity. Claw with subbasal additional tooth. MALE. Proclaws bifid; outer mesoclaw with additional tiny sometimes indistinct tooth medially, inner mesoclaw without additional tooth; metaclaws without additional tooth. S6 with transverse and interrupted medially row of short and stout bristles located little before posterior margin ( Fig. 10 ). Hypopygium ( Figs 15, 16 ) in ventral view capitate; dorsal surface with suberect lobe; ventral surface subapically and apically with dense and long bristles. Propodeum with dense small coarse punctures forming granulose texture ( Fig. 7 ). Body from brown to dark brown with abundant yellow on: head, mesosoma, metasoma and legs ( Figs 1–9 ). Wings yellowish without any dark bands ( Figs 11, 12 ). MATERIAL EXAMINED. Type material . Holotype – ♀ , " Pompilus ichneumoniformis Cam. type" // " Pseudagenia deceptrix Smith ♂ " // "Type" // " R . Wahis dt. Holotype de Pompilus ichneumoniformis ♀ CAM. = Eopompilus himalayensis mihi, nom. nov. pro Cam. 1896 [1897], nec Smith, 1864" [ HEC ]. Other material . India : Uttarakhand , Mussoorie , 7500 f. [ 2286 m ], 22.IX [19]62, 3♀ , 1♂ (Gupta) ; Himalaya , Punjab , Khajjiar , 29.VI 1965 , 1♀ (coll. D. Ram , n° 121) [ BMNH ]; the same label, 1♀ ( Tikar , n° T 50 ) [GxABT]; Himachal Pradesh , Ahla , 2286 m , 16.IX 1971, 1♀ (Gulati, n° JD 137 ); the same location, 9.IX 1971 , 2♀ (Gulati, n° JD 113,114); Himachal Pradesh , Kalatop , 2488 m , 17.ix.1971 , 1♀ (Tulsi, n° JD 143 ) ; the same location, 2.VIII 1971 , 1♂ (Tulsi, n° M. 147); Himachal Pradesh , Dalhousie, 2132 m , 12.IX 1971 , 1♀ (Givish, n° JD 123 ) ; the same location, 26.vii.1965 , 1♂ (Kamath coll., K1); the same location, 18.IX 1971 , 1♀ (Tulsi, n° JD 147 ); Himachal Pradesh, Upper Bakrota , 12.IX 1971 , 1♂ (Tulsi, n° JD 124 ) [ BMNH ]; the same location, 12.VIII 1971 , 1♂ (Jozeph, n° JD39 ); Himachal Pradesh , Barendhar, Kotgarh- S.S., IX 1962 , "hovering on paddy", 1♀ [GxABT]. Laos : Hua Phan [ Houaphanh ] Prov., Ban Saleui , Phou Pan Mt. , 1350–1900 m ., 20°13'30"N , 103°59'26"E , 29.IV 2012, 2♂ ( C. Holzschuh and locals) [ OLL ]; Hua Phan [ Houaphanh ] Prov., Phou Pan, Umg. Ort Ban Saleui, 1350–1900 m ., 20°13'30"N , 103°59'26"E , 28.IV 2012 , 1♂ ( C. Holzschuh and locals) [ IBSS ] . Figs 1–8. Eopompilus himalayensis Wahis, Lelej et Loktionov , nom. n. , ♂, Laos. 1 – habitus, dorsal view; 2 – head, anterior view; 3 – head, lateral view; 4 – head, dorsal view; 5 – mesoscutum, mesoscutellum, metanotum, metapostnotum and propodeum, dorsal view; 6 – metasoma, dorsal view; 7 – metapostnotum and propodeum, dorsal view; 8 – mesosoma and metasoma, ventral view; 9 – mesoscutellum, metanotum, metapostnotum, propodeum and T 1, dorsal view; 10 – metatibia, lateral view. Scale bar: 1, 6, 8 = 1 mm ; 2–5 = 0.5 mm . DESCRIPTION. MALE (hitherto unknown). Length: body 11.9–12.5 mm ; forewing 11.5–12.5 mm . Head 1.22–1.23 times as wide as height; UID: MID: LID = 42–48: 50–55: 51–56; MID 0.48–0.51 times as long as head width in frontal view ( Fig. 2 ). Ocelli large, noticeably raised; ocellar triangle right-angled; POD: OOD = 0.71–0.86 ( Fig. 4 ). Head in frontal view with vertex barely convex medially ( Fig. 2). Posterior margin of vertex straight in dorsal view ( Fig. 4 ). Frons in lateral view evenly and barely convex ( Fig. 3 ). Gena in dorsal view barely developed ( Fig. 4 ), in profile convex medially and evenly receding toward vertex and mandible ( Fig. 3 ). Malar space indistinct. Clypeus moderately and evenly convex, 1.9–2.1 times as wide as long; apical rim narrow, without pigmentation; anterior margin straight; anterolateral corner rounded ( Fig. 2 ). Labrum flat; anterior border arcuately emarginate medially. Mandible pointed apically, with stout subapical tooth. Flagellum in dorsal view filiform; F1 4.2–4.4 times as long as maximum width and 0.96–0.97 times as long as UID; F2–F 11 in lateral view angulate ventrally and concave dorsally; apical flagellomere pointed apically. Mesosoma in dorsal view 2.2–2.3 times as long as maximum width, narrowing anteriorly and posteriorly ( Fig. 1 ). Pronotum evenly convex, with anterior declivity somewhat developed and indistinctly differentiated from dorsum ( Fig. 9 ); posterior border deeply angulate ( Fig. 4 ). Disc of mesoscutum rather flattened; parapsidal sulcus distinctly impressed. Discs of mesoscutellum and metanotum noticeably convex. Metanotum medially 1.3–1.4 times as long as metapostnotum medially ( Fig. 5 ). Metapostnotum with longitudinal median depression hardly touching its anterior margin ( Fig. 7 ). Propodeum in lateral view gently convex, slightly raised above level of metapostnotum. Mesopleuron noticeably convex posteriorly. Legs . Protarsomere 1 with three rows of spines ventrally; protarsomeres 2 and 3 ventrally with median row of shorter spines than on protarsomere 1. Protarsomeres 4 and 5 with three rows of spines ventrally. Meso- and metatarsomeres 4 and 5 without spines ventrally. Femora and protibia (except apical part) without spines. Meso- and metatibia with scattered short spines. Metatibia inner side with longitudinal furrow along and above brush. Longest spur of metatibia 0.70–0.75 times as long as meta- tarsomere 1. Orbicula with 6–8 long radiating bristles; longest bristle touching claw top. Proclaws bifid; outer mesoclaw with additional tiny sometimes indistinct tooth medially, inner mesoclaw without additional tooth; metaclaws without additional tooth. Wings . Wings faintly infuscated, yellowish, without any dark bands; pterostigma dark brown. Forewing ( Figs 1 , 9, 12 ) with pterostigma 0.82–0.92 times as long as, 0.30–0.36 times as high as SMC 2. SMC 2 2.0–2.33 times as long as high, narrowed on vein Rs by 0.72–1.06) times its own length on vein M , receiving crossvein 1m-cu at basal 0.31–0.42. SMC 3 1.0–1.34 times as long as SMC 2 on vein M , 0.40–0.61 times as long as SMC 2 on vein Rs , narrowed on vein Rs by 0.33–0.41 times its own length on vein M , receiving crossvein 2m-cu at basal 0.31–0.36; crossvein 2rs-m hardly arcuate; crossvein 3rs-m curved; crossvein cu-a oblique, originating little posteriorly to separation of vein M+CuA (postfurcal); veins M and Cu 1 touching wing margin. Hind wing ( Figs 1 , 11 ) crossvein cu-a confluent with vein A , forming long sinuate line. Metasoma . T 1 gradually widening toward apex, in dorsal view anteriorly 0.38– 0.42 times as wide as posteriorly ( Fig. 6 ). S2 without any depression or groove. S6 subapically somewhat convex on both sides of median longitudinal depression, with transverse and interrupted medially row of short and stout bristles located little before posterior margin; posterior margin arcuately emarginate medially ( Fig. 10 ). Hypopygium ( Figs 15, 16 ) in ventral view capitate; dorsal surface with suberect lobe; ventral surface subapically and apically with dense and long bristles. Genitalia (Figs 13, 14). Figs 9–16. Eopompilus himalayensis Wahis, Lelej et Loktionov , nom. n. , ♂, Laos. 9 – habitus, lateral view; 10 – S6, ventral view; 11 – hind wing; 12 – forewing; 13 – genitalia, ventral view; 14 – genitalia, lateral view; 15 – hypopygium, ventral view; 16 – hypopygium, dorso-lateral view. Scale bar: 9, 11, 12 = 1 mm ; 10, 13–16 = 0.1 mm . Sculpture . Body matt, with clypeus apical rim, pronotum anteriorly, metanotum laterally and propodeum posterior rim somewhat polished. Head, meso- and metasoma punctate. Frons with dense and soft punctures. Discs of mesoscutum and mesoscutellum with rarer and larger punctures than on frons. Pronotum, disc of metanotum and mesopleuron with indistinct punctures. Metapostnotum with transverse striae disconnected by median longitudinal depression ( Fig. 7 ). Propodeum with dense small coarse punctures giving granulose texture ( Fig. 7 ). T 1– T 6 and S1–S2 with micropuntures. Colour ( Figs 1–10 ). Body from brown to dark brown, with abundant yellow on: face along inner orbit, clypeus, labrum, mandible except apical portion, gena, pronotum anteriorly and posteriorly, disc of mesoscutum along lateral margin and posteromedially, mesoscutellum laterally and medially, disc of metanotum, sides of metapostnotum, propodeum anteromedially and along lateral and posterior margin, pro-, meso- and metapleuron, T 1 medially or anteriorly, T 2– T 6 anteriorly and anterolaterally (if metasoma stretched), S1–S5 except posterior portion, S6. Scape, pedicel and flagellum dark brown dorsally; scape yellowish ventrally; pedicel and flagellum (F8–F11 indistinctly) orange ventrally. Legs brown, with dark brown meso- and metatarsi and yellow spots on: coxae, femora and protibia. Pubescence . Vertex, gena, propleuron and propodeum laterally with dense and long erect setae. Procoxa with scattered erect setae. Disc of pronotum and S1–S5 with shorter than on vertex erect setae. S6 with group of setae lateroapically ( Fig. 10). T 5 and T 6 with very dense and short setae. Head, meso-, metasoma and legs with micropubescence. COMPARISON. The hitherto unknown male of Eopompilus himalayensis nom. n. is similar to that of E. ungulivarius Ji et Ma from China in having capitate shape of hypopygium and somewhat similar shape of genitalia and resembles to that of Eopompilus luteus Lelej from Russia and China in having abundant yellow colouration of body, yellowish wings and large body size. It can be easily distinguished from both of them as well as from those of other congeners by the following: proclaws bifid, outer mesoclaw with tiny sometimes indistinct additional tooth medially, inner mesoclaw without additional tooth, metaclaws without additional tooth vs claws without additional tooth in E. internalis (Matsumura) , E. luteus Lelej and E. minor Gussakovskij or if proclaws bifid then mesoclaw almost bifid and metaclaw with small additional tooth in E. ungulivarius ; S6 with transverse and interrupted medially row of short and stout bristles located little before posterior margin ( Fig. 10 ) vs transverse row of spines located right on posterior margin in other congeners; propodeum with dense small coarse punctures giving granulose texture ( Fig. 7 ) vs propodeum with delicate and rarer punctures in other congeners. DISTRIBUTION. India ( Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand ); Laos (new record) . ETYMOLOGY. The specific name refers to the north-west distribution of the species in India , along the Himalayan border. REMARKS. The specimen (female) deposited in HEC (Rothney's, Box 40) consi- dered here as a type of Pompilus ichneumoniformis Cameron lacks a geographical label but has the two following labels: first one is " Pompilus ichneumoniformis Cam. type " (Cameron' label) and second one is " Pseudagenia deceptrix Smith ♂ " (presumably had been written by Bingham). R . Wahis had attached to this specimen the red label "Type" and the label " R . Wahis dt. Holotype de Pompilus ichneumoniformis ♀ CAM. = Eopompilus himalayensis mihi, nom. nov. pro Cam. 1896 [1897], nec Smith, 1864". The Cameron' type label (given above), the provenance of the specimen (Rothney' collection) and the descriptions of the species (Cameron, 1897) obviously prove that the specimen is the type of the species in question. Bingham' label just demonstrates the confusion that Bingham established between the Cameron' species originating from India and that one of Smith (1864) described from the South America (see the discussion in Wahis, 2018). Figs 17–19. Eopompilus himalayensis Wahis, Lelej et Loktionov , nom. n . , ♀, India. 17 – head, frontal view; 18 – mesosoma, dorsal view; 19 – habitus, dorsal view.