Zethus ( Madecazethus ) seyrigi Giordani Soika, 1940

Zethus ( Madecazethus) seyrigi Giordani Soika, 1940 View in CoL

( Figs 1C View FIGURE 1 , 58C View FIGURE 58 , 66H View FIGURE 66 )

Zethus Seyrigi Giordani Soika, 1940: 130 View in CoL (key), 137, fig. I (16), ♀ —“ Madagascar: Bekily ” ( holotype MSNVE).

Type material examined. HOLOTYPE: ♀ labelled “ Madagascar / Bekily / III-28 / A.Seyrig // HOLOTYPUS / Z. Seyrigi / A.Giordani Soika [red label]” ( MSNVE).

Distribution. Madagascar: Toliara ( Giordani Soika 1940, 1979; Gusenleitner 2004) ( Fig. 66H View FIGURE 66 ).

Species incertae sedis

“ Odynerus ” melanus de Saussure, 1853

( Figs 59 View FIGURE 59 , 66I View FIGURE 66 )

Odynerus melanus de Saussure, 1853: 159 , pl. XVIII fig. 9, ♀ —“ Madagascar ” (MNHN).

Odynerus malagassus de Saussure, 1900: 237 , ♀ —“Nossi-Be” (type depository unknown). Syn. nov. Type material examined. HOLOTYPE Of ODYNERUS MELANUS : ♀ labelled “MUSÉUM PARIS // Odynerus View in CoL / melanus / Madagasc. [handwritten] // [circular green label] // MNHN, Paris / EY46586 [QR code]” (MNHN, EY46586 ).

Distribution. Madagascar: Antsiranana, Toamasina, Toliara ( de Saussure 1900; Giordani Soika 1941; Borsato 1999) ( Fig. 66I View FIGURE 66 ).

Notes. de Saussure (1900: 237) described Odynerus malagassus de Saussure, 1900 comparing it with Odynerus sakalavus de Saussure, 1890 due to a similar general appearance and pattern, but highlighting several differences, and later the comparison was taken up by Giordani Soika (1941: 179) in his key to Malagasy “ Odynerus ” but indicating only the shape of the yellow band at the apex of T2 as a difference. As reported above, Odynerus sakalavus is here transferred to the genus Tuleara and the two species present numerous differences that deny any affinity, since O. malagassus does not present any of the typical characters of Tuleara (e.g., development of the submarginal carina, shape of the propodeal valvula, structure of T2). Borsato (1999: 108) introduced the new combination Postepipona malagassa without providing a reason, although it can be speculated that he followed an unpublished opinion of Giordani Soika, as one specimen of this species in MSNVE has an identification label written by Giordani Soika reporting “ Postepipona melana ”. As reported above (see under Antepipona ), Postepipona turned out to be only a junior synonym of Antepipona , but O. malagassus does not present any character that allows it to be included in that genus, therefore ruling out its attribution to Antepipona . Moreover, comparison of specimens of Odynerus malagassus with the holotype of Odynerus melanus de Saussure, 1853 showed how they perfectly match in all characters, leading to the synonymy of O. malagassus under O. melanus . Comparison with other Malagasy and more broadly Old World genera of Eumeninae has not revealed clear affinities: when compared with the Malagasy genera, O. melanus shows a superficial similarity with the species of the genus Malagassodynerus , from which it differs however in the presence of a strong epicnemial carina ( Fig. 59D View FIGURE 59 ), in the structure of the propodeum ( Fig. 59C View FIGURE 59 ) and of T1 ( Fig. 59E View FIGURE 59 ), while the presence of oblique carinae on the sides of T3–T6 ( Fig. 59F View FIGURE 59 ) and the cephalic foveae placed very close to the ocelli ( Fig. 59B View FIGURE 59 ) make it similar to Malgachemenes , from which it differs in its larger size, much stockier build, strong epicnemial carina ( Fig. 59D View FIGURE 59 ) and non-translucent apical margin of T1 ( Fig. 59E View FIGURE 59 ). Odynerus melanus could turn out to be an aberrant species belonging to one of the two mentioned genera or belong to an undescribed third genus, but this choice will have to be made following a phylogeny of the African Eumeninae , so for the moment it is considered as a species incertae sedis.

The hyalinelamellatus -group

Odynerus hyalinelamellatus Giordani Soika, 1941 View in CoL and O. parvilamellatus Giordani Soika, 1941 View in CoL are two species described by Giordani Soika (1941) in his key to Malagasy “ Odynerus View in CoL ” and subsequently no longer treated from a taxonomic point of view, except for being considered as incertae sedis in the catalogue published by Carpenter & Madl (2009). Although the types of both species are lost ( Dal Pos et al. 2022), the study of new material has allowed identification of specimens coinciding with both species and to ascertain their affinities with Giordania nigra Gusenleitner, 1995 , the only species included in the genus Giordania other than the type species Odynerus subventricosus View in CoL . Since Giordania is here synonymized under Malagassodynerus View in CoL (see under Malagassodynerus View in CoL for more details), the three species listed above have been compared to the genus Malagassodynerus View in CoL , revealing some important differences: suture between mesoscutum and scutellum deeply furrowed for most of its length and slightly crenate only at extreme sides, scutellum and metanotum flat and forming an even curvature with the rest of the mesosoma ( Fig. 2K View FIGURE 2 ), basal fovea of the propodeum narrow and covering more than half of the median line ( Fig. 2K View FIGURE 2 ), more convex and hemi-elliptical T1 ( Figs 61C–G View FIGURE 61 ), mandibles proportionally longer ( Figs 61A, B View FIGURE 61 ), female mandible with a very broad third tooth ( Fig. 61B View FIGURE 61 ), vertex of the female with cephalic foveae placed just behind the ocellar triangle, male mandible thin and with very small third tooth and large perpendicularly projecting fourth tooth ( Fig. 61A View FIGURE 61 ). The inclusion of these three species within Malagassodynerus View in CoL would therefore be unjustified, as not supported by evident common characteristics. It is to be noted that the male of O. parvilamellatus View in CoL shows the same modified mandible observed in the males of Tuleara View in CoL and also the genitalia show some similarities, although the general morphology of the genitalia of these two taxa is quite common in the subfamily Eumeninae ; on the other hand, these three species present several characters clearly not compatible with Tuleara View in CoL , such as an elongate basal fovea of the propodeum and the morphology of submarginal carina and propodeal valvula, and the general body-plan is markedly different from that of Tuleara View in CoL . Given these premises, it is difficult to ascertain the actual taxonomic position of these three species and the description of a dedicated genus should be done following a phylogenetic study covering the Malagasy Eumeninae , therefore Giordania nigra is considered as incertae sedis together with Odynerus hyalinelamellatus View in CoL and O. parvilamellatus View in CoL , forming a group here informally referred to as the “ hyalinelamellatus View in CoL -group”.

Key to the species of the hyalinelamellatus View in CoL -group

1. Apical margin of T2 not lamellate ( Fig. 61D View FIGURE 61 ) or at most with a very narrow dark lamella ( Fig. 61C View FIGURE 61 ), not clearly differentiated from the rest of the surface and not reflexed. Wings dark with black venation for about two-thirds, apical third light with yellowish-white venation ( Fig. 60A View FIGURE 60 )............................................. “ Giordania” nigra Gusenleitner

- Apical margin of T2 with a long translucent lamella, clearly separated from the rest of the surface and strongly reflexed, almost vertical ( Figs 61E–G View FIGURE 61 ). Wings uniformly hyaline with yellowish-orange tinge ( Figs 60B, C View FIGURE 60 ).......................... 2

2. T3 with an apical lamella similar to T2 ( Figs 61E, F View FIGURE 61 ).................... “ Odynerus” hyalinelamellatus Giordani Soika View in CoL

- T3 not lamellate, apical margin simple ( Fig. 61G View FIGURE 61 )......................... “ Odynerus” parvilamellatus Giordani Soika View in CoL