A Taxonomic Study Of The Myosoma Genus-Group With Description Of Amyosoma Cavei Sp. N. From Honduras (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Braconinae: Braconini) Author Papp, J. text Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2012 2012-05-10 58 1 1 29 journal article 106153 10.5281/zenodo.5732026 508a28c5-cba2-4fab-91a6-57b0cab1c01a 2064-2474 5732026 THE MYOSOMA GENUS–GROUP Within the tribe Braconini the Myosoma genus-group is distinguished by the following features: 1.) First tergite very long and narrow, two to five times as long as broad behind ( Fig. 83 in QUICKE 1997: 172; Figs 29 , 46 , 56 ) 2.) Second tergite considerably transverse, i.e. 3.3–4 times as broad behind as long medially, laterally narrowing ( Figs 37 , 46 , 65 , 81 , 91 , 97 ). 3.) Second submarginal cell long, i.e. 3–SR at least 1.5–1.6 times, frequently more than twice, longer than 2–SR ( Figs 26 , 34 , 42 , 53 , 62 , 71 , 79 , 89 , 95 ). The genus-group comprises three genera: Amyosoma VIERECK , Myosoma BRULLÉ and Mysomatoides QUICKE. The three genera and the species of Myosoma and Myosomatoides are separated by the features keyed: 1 (4) Second tergite with a distinct mid-longitudinal ridge ( Fig. 4 in QUICKE 1994: 229). Hind femur and tibia flattened ( Fig. 3 in QUICKE l.c.; Fig. 94 ). The two Myosomatoides species are keyed after QUICKE (1994: 230) Myosomatoides QUICKE, 1994 2 (3) Wings uniformly brown. (= myersi QUICKE, 1994 syn. n. , = pennipes MYERS, 1931 ) M. fasciatus ( BRULLÉ, 1846 ) 3 (2) Wings largely hyaline with apical third of the forewing brown ( Fig. 1 in QUICKE l.c.) M. pennipes ( WESTWOOD, 1882 ) 4 (1) Second tergite without ridge. Hind femur and tibia not flattened ( Figs 24 , 32 , 40 , 51 , 60 , 69 , 77 , 87 ). 5 (6) Hind femur and tibia with short hairs as usually in Braconinae ( Fig. 32 ). Vein 1r–m of hind wing weakly bent ( Figs 36 , 45 ) to almost straight ( Fig. 44 ). See the key to the six species of the genus Amyosoma in VAN ACHTERBERG & POLASZEK (1996: 21). The seventh species, A. cavei sp. n. , runs to A. rufescens ( QUICKE et INGRAM, 1993 ) with the help of this key, the distinction of these two species is presented at M. (A.) cavei sp. n. Amyosoma VIERECK, 1913 6 (5) Hind femur and hind tibia with long hairs ( Figs 24 , 51 , 69 , 87 ). Vein 1r–m of hind wing distinctly bent ( Figs 64 , 73 ) Myosoma BRULLÉ, 1846 7 (10) Fore wing: Second submarginal cell relatively short, i.e. 3–SR 1.5–1.6 times longer than 2–SR ; SR1 1.5–1.7 times longer than 3–SR ( Figs 79 , 89 ). Temple in dorsal view strongly rounded to receded ( Figs 75, 82 , 85 ). 8 (9) First tergite twice longer than broad behind, scutum clearly broadening posteriorly ( Fig. 91 ). Head in dorsal view relatively more transverse, 1.7 times as broad as long, temple strongly rounded ( Fig. 85 ). Vein SR1 of fore wing approaching tip of wing ( Fig. 89 ). ♀: 6 mm . – Brazil M. rubriventre BRULLÉ, 1846 9 (8) First tergite five times as long as broad behind, scutum less broadening posteriorly ( Fig. 81 ). Head in dorsal view relatively less transverse, 1.6 times as broad as long, temple receded ( Figs 75, 82 ). Vein SR1 of fore wing reaching tip of wing ( Fig. 79 ). ♀: 8–8.5 mm . – Colombia M. lagopus ( KRIECHBAUMER, 1900 ) 10 (7) Fore wing: Second submarginal cell relatively long, i.e. 3–SR 1.8–2 times longer than 2–SR ; SR1 1.1–1.3 times longer than 3–SR ( Figs 26 , 53 , 62 , 71 ). Temple in dorsal view rounded to less rounded ( Figs 22 , 49 , 58 , 67 ). 11 (14) Second submarginal cell very long, 3–SR 2.4–2.6 times as long as 2–SR ( Figs 26 , 53 ). Head in dorsal view a bit more transverse, 1.7 times as broad as long ( Figs 22 , 49 ) 12 (13) Eye in dorsal view slightly less protruding and 1.5 times as long as temple ( Figs 38–39 ). Hind femur less thick, 3.8 times as long as broad medially ( Fig. 40 ). Metasoma black, second tergite laterally reddish. Fore wing brown fumous, distally (beyond pterostigma) subhyaline. ♀: 8 mm . – Bolivia M. brullei SZÉPLIGETI, 1906 13 (12) Eye in dorsal view slightly more protruding and 1.6 times as long as temple ( Fig. 49 ). Hind femur thick. 2.9 times as long as broad medially ( Fig. 51 ). Metasoma testaceous, tergites 6–8 black. Fore wing brown fumous, basally subhyaline. ♀: 10 mm . – Brazil M. errans ( SZÉPLIGETI, 1902 ) 14 (11) Second submarginal cell long, 3–SR 1.8–1.9 times as long 2–SR ( Figs 62 , 71 ). Head in dorsal view a bit less transverse ( Figs 58 , 67 ). 15 (16) Basal lobe of claw deep ( Fig. 70 ). Eye in dorsal view 1.7 times longer than temple ( Fig. 67 ). Scape in outer-lateral view longer than broad apically ( Fig. 66 ). Metasoma reddish. ♀: 8.5 mm . – Ecuador M. hirtipes BRULLÉ, 1846 16 (15) Basal lobe of claw less deep ( Fig 61 ). Eye in dorsal view 1.4 times longer than temple ( Fig. 58 ). Scape in outer-lateral view cubic-form, i.e. as long as broad apically (cf. Fig. 48 ). Metasoma testaceous, apically black. ♀: 9 mm . – Brazil , Belize M. fuscipenne BRULLÉ, 1846 Taxonomic remarks – 1.) The genera Amyosoma VIERECK, 1913 and Myosoma BRULLÉ, 1846 were considered as two valid taxa, however, recently QUICKE & INGRAM (1993: 317) and BELSHAW et al. (2001: 423) formally considered them congeneric. However, the genus Amyosoma is a valid genus accepting VAN ACHTERBERG & POLASZEK’ s (1996: 20) point of view on the distinction of the two genera in question. 2.) Ichneumon mutator FABRICIUS, 1775 was rearranged by BRULLÉ (1846: 453) into the genus Myosoma ; recently QUICKE & INGRAM designated it as the type species of their new genus Poecilobraconoides QUICKE et INGRAM, 1993 . Furthermore, the species Iphiaulax bipartitus SZÉPLIGETI, 1905 is conspecific with P. mutator (FABRICIUS) ( QUICKE 1991: 175 ) distributed in Australia . 3.) The sixth species of the genus Myosoma , M. luteum , described by SZÉPLIGETI in 1913 was placed in the genus Cratocnema SZÉPLIGETI, 1914 ( QUICKE 1991: 184 , PAPP 2000: 155 ). Concerning the new combination ( Cratocnema lutea ) QUICKE (l.c.) pointed out: “Very aberrant species of Cratocnema ...” As a result of the examination of the female lectotype of Myosoma luteum I confirm QUICKE’ s statement with the supplementary comment that it does not represent the genus Cratocnema but, perhaps, it belongs to an undescribed genus. 4.) The present taxonomic status of the Myosoma species by CAMERON see the checklist in Appendix.