Ropalidia cincta (LEPELETIER 1836)

Ropalidia cincta (LEPELETIER 1836) View in CoL , nomen dubium

Epipona cincta LEPELETIER 1836 , loc. typ. Senegal, Afrique equinoxiale

Icaria cincta LEPELETIER 1836

Icaria xanthura MAGRETTI 1884 (homonym of Icaria xanthura DE SAUSSURE )

Type material. Not examined (type unaccounted for). The species description suggests the collection Serville, which is scattered and often has wrong labels, especially specimens that bear labels Afrique equinoxiale ( Rambur, 1842) .

Diagnosis. The species description provides an account of the African species, with description in Latin [ Nigra , punctulata, griseo subtomentosa, prothorace humerisque pallido marginatis; abdominis segmenti secundi margine postico luteo. Alae hyalinae, costâ et macula in cellulae radialis apice magna, nigrofuscis]. The description translates as: “black, punctate, with greyish pubescence, pronotum with yellow margin, second metasomal segment with posterior band; wings transparent, nervature brown, apical spot large and brown-black” ( Lepetetier de Saint-Fargeau, 1836). The description does not provide sufficient criteria to understand which species that is.

Following this description, de Saussure changed the genus into Icaria , with a somewhat different redescription. The translation from French reads as “brown basal colour, with reddish antenna and clypeus, which also has a yellow line at its lower edge; mandible with a yellow dot, pronotum with widened yellow areas, yellow band at first and second metasomal segment, brown legs, yellow spot on coxa I, transparent wings and brown apical spot” (H. De Saussure, 1853). Notably, he reports substantial variation, which includes four colour variants: brown insect with yellow pronotum (var A), thin yellow line on the pronotum (var B), a dark insect with reddish metasoma tip (var C) or completely red insect (var D). The colour plates provided in the same monograph (plate 5) show R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) that fits the species description, but also R. cincta (LEPELETIER) with just a thin yellow line on both pronotum and T2, which is in disagreement with the detailed description from the same paper. De Saussure suggested the following difference between R. cincta (LEPELETIER) and R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) : acute clypeal apex in R. cincta (obtuse in R. guttatipennis ), mainly yellow pronotum and thick posterior band on T2 (brown with thin yellow lines in guttatipennis ), and propodeum without two [dorsal?] carina (with developed carina in guttatipennis ). Subsequently, Bequaert warned about the similarities of these two species, but interpreted the previous papers differently. He used the carina described by the previous authors, but assumes that they are referring to the lower carina (=inferior propodeal carina), with developed inferior propodeal carina in R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) , while R. cincta (LEPELETIER) is reported not to have them developed ( Bequaret, 1918). He also reported differences in the shape of the terminal flagellomere in male, which is used as the primary separation feature between these two species, without mentioning the colour pattern. The drawn antenna of assumed R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) in Bequaert (thin terminal antennal article, Figure 244 in that paper) most certainly does not belong to R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) ( Bequaret, 1918) , further contributing to taxonomic uncertainties of previous papers. In addition, the examined type series specimens of R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) do not have developed inferior propodeal carina, meaning that Bequaert’s determination of R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) is pointing to another, undefined species. A subsequent analysis of the specimens from the AMNH collection that Bequaert identified as R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) showed that they belonged to a newly described R. kuficha sp. nov.

Phenotypical features of de Saussure’s R. cincta (LEPELETIER) include mainly yellow pronotum and thick yellow line at T2, which is a relatively common feature in the examined material. However, most of the specimens with these features that were genotyped with COI and 28S are conspecific or in a very close relationship with R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) . Only four sequenced specimens belonged to a separate COI genetic cluster (BOLD: ADM2241), while the results of 28S rDNA were less convincing, suggesting the same sequence as R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) cluster (with a single exception, which was a specimen from the island of Pemba, which was somewhat more distant from R. guttatipennis DE SAUSSURE ). Based on all of these problems, lack of the primary type specimen, and sufficient morphological features, the name R. cincta (LEPELETIER) is hereby considered to be conspecific with the TT cluster of R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) . However, in the absence of type material, it is only possible to consider R. cincta (LEPELETIER) a nomen dubium. Therefore, all previous references to R. cincta (LEPELETIER) should probably be considered R. guttatipennis (DE SAUSSURE) .