Imeria (Caenojoppa) longitarsis (CAMERON, 1905)

Imeria (Caenojoppa) longitarsis (CAMERON, 1905) View in CoL (figs 13, 25)

L e c t o t y p e ³:[red] type; B. M. Type Hym. 3.6.99; Kuching June 4 1903; NHMUK 015214880 About NHMUK ( NHM), type examined .

syn. nov. Elasmognathias dentatus CUSHMAN, 1922

Type not studied.

A d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e d m a t e r i a l: Malaysia: Pahang, F.M.S. Fraser´s Hill, 4200 ft., 1♀ 19.v.1932, NHMUK 015214886 (NHM).

D e s c r i p t i o n: ♀. Body length 10.0 mm. Flagellum with 42 segments, slender, bristle-shaped; 1 st flagellar segment 5.0× as long as wide, all segments longer than wide. Temple long, slightly and roundly narrowed apically. OED 1.4× and OOD 0.9× ocellar diameter. Temple and frons smooth and shining, with sparse superficial punctures. Face with rather dense superficial punctures, shining. Clypeus with very sparse punctures; apical margin sharp and pointed medially. Gena with very sparse punctures. Malar space 0.8× as long as width of mandibular base.

Side of pronotum almost smooth, epomia long but not reaching ventral margin of pronotum. Notaulus impressed in frontal 0.3 of mesoscutum. Mesoscutum with some coarse oblique rugae around notaulus and apico-medially, otherwise with very superficial punctures and almost smooth, shining. Mesopleuron coarsely striate dorsally and punctate ventrally; speculum smooth. Epicnemial carina slightly widened behind fore coxa. Sternaulus distinctly impressed in frontal 0.4 of mesopleuron. Metapleuron ± striate; juxtacoxal carina distinct in frontal half. Scutellum moderately elevated, almost pyramidal, about as long as wide, very superficially punctate; with complete lateral and apical slightly lamelliform carina. Postscutellum smooth. Propodeum rugose-punctate, ± smooth basally, completely carinated, with blunt but distinct apophysis; spiracle long-oval. Area basalis much wider than long, trapezoid. Area superomedia hexagonal, about as long as wide; costula reaching its middle. Area petiolaris with transverse rugae. Hind coxa densely punctate, without scopa. Hind femur with sparse punctures in ventral half, 4.3× as long as wide. Claws simple. Areolet pentagonal, frontal distance between veins 2rs-m and 3rs-m 2× their diameter. Vein 1cu-a interstitial.

2 nd to 4 th sternites with median folds. 2 nd tergite 1.1× as wide as long. Ovipositor sheath slender and stick-shaped, reaching behind metasomal apex by length of 3 rd hind tarsomere.

Color: black. Flagellum black, flagellar segments 6-14 ivory dorsally. Palps, mandible except teeth, clypeus, face except small brown median spot, complete wide orbits, frontal and upper margins of pronotum, tegula, subtegular ridge, longitudinal stripe on ventral mesopleuron, scutellum and postscutellum, upper division and apical spot on metapleuron, stripe on area dentipara and area posteroexterna, petiole, apical bands on all tergites (medially narrowed on postpetiole, 2 nd to 3 rd tergites) ivory. Legs reddish; fore and mid coxae and all trochanters ivory; hind coxa black, reddish ventrally, with ivory spot dorsally; fore and mid tarsi brownish; hind femur black in apical 0.2; hind tibia black in basal 0.2 and apical 0.25, with subbasal ivory stripe externally; hind tarsus ivory yellow (distal tarsomere absent). Wings hyaline; pterostigma brown.

³ (holotype of Caenojoppa longitarsis ). Body length 12 mm. Flagellum with>10 segments (tips broken off); 1 st flagellar segment 3.3× as long as wide. Tyloids not visible. Temple long, parallel behind eye and slightly and roundly narrowed apically. OED 1.7× and OOD 1.2× ocellar diameter. Temple and frons smooth and shining, with sparse superficial punctures. Face with superficial punctures, shining. Clypeus with very sparse punctures; apical margin sharp and pointed medially. Gena with very scattered punctures. Malar space 0.6× as long as width of mandibular base.

Side of pronotum almost smooth, with some longitudinal rugae at posterior margin; epomia long but not reaching ventral margin of pronotum. Notaulus impressed in frontal 0.4 of mesoscutum. Mesoscutum finely granulate, ± dull. Mesopleuron coarsely striate dorsally and rugose-punctate ventrally; speculum smooth. Epicnemial carina slightly widened behind fore coxa. Sternaulus distinctly impressed in frontal 0.5 of mesopleuron. Metapleuron ± obliquely striate; juxtacoxal carina distinct. Scutellum moderately elevated, almost pyramidal, slightly wider than long; with complete lateral and apical, slightly lamelliform carina. Postscutellum smooth. Propodeum rugose-punctate, ± smooth basally, completely carinated, with blunt but distinct apophysis; spiracle long-oval. Area basalis wider than long, about rectangular. Area superomedia hexagonal, about as long as wide; costula reaching its middle. Area petiolaris with transverse rugae. Hind femur 4.5× as long as wide. Claws simple. Areolet pentagonal, frontal distance between veins 2rs-m and 3rs-m 3× their diameter. Vein 1cu-a interstitial.

Metasoma oxypygous. Postpetiole distinctly widened, almost smooth and shining. 2 nd tergite 1.3× as wide as long. Gastrocoelus impressed, granulated. Thyridium large, transverse, 2.5× as wide as interval between thyridia. Hypopygium unmodified, apical margin straight.

Color: black. Basal flagellum black. Palps, mandible except teeth, clypeus, face except small brown median spot, complete orbits, frontal and upper margins of pronotum, spot on tegula, subtegular ridge, central spot on mesoscutum, ventral band and posterior margin of mesopleuron, scutellum and postscutellum, upper division and apical spot on metapleuron, spot around apophysis, petiole, and apical bands on all tergites ivory. Legs reddish-yellow; fore and mid coxae and all trochanters ivory; hind coxa black, yellowish basally, with ivory spot dorsally; hind femur black in apical 0.2; hind tibia yellowish, black in basal 0.1 and apical 0.15; hind tarsus ivory. Wings hyaline; pterostigma black.

R e m a r k: Imeria longitarsis (as Caenojoppa longitarsis ) was described by CAMERON (1905a, 1905b) in two different papers from presumably one male specimen. In 1933, HEINRICH (1937: 261) studied this type in London but mentioned it as a female. This interpretation was adopted, published and the specimen designated as lectotype by TOWNES et al. (1961).

It is not clear if TOWNES really studied the type because there is none of his labels at the original material. Also, CAMERON did not mention other than the type material. In my opinion, the statement of HEINRICH (1937) could be a lapsus, and the “ lectotype ” in the NHM is in fact the male holotype of this species.

D i s t r i b u t i o n: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines.