0iasut of $|)tlos(opfipZeya & Hayat (1995) revised the Indian species of Gonatocerus Nees and...

SYSTEMATIC STUDIES ON THE GENERA OF INDIAN MYMARIDAE (HYMENOPTERA: CHALCIDOIDEA)

DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

0iasut of $|)tlos(opfip IN

ZOOLOGY

Bv

PRINCE TARIQUE ANWAR

Under the supervision of

DR. SHAHID BIN ZEYA

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY FACULTY OF LIFE SCIENCES

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY. ALIGARH (INDIA)

2013

V ^ &^

^ ^ ^

&^^ d?^

24 NOV 2014

DS4353

(iyE<DICJil^<D

JWD

External; 2700920/21-3430 „ ^ r External; 2700920/2^ P * ^ ^ \ Internal 3430,3431

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

ALIGARH - 202 002 INDIA

Sections: 1. ENTOMOLOGY 2. FISHERY SCIENCE &AQUACULTURE Q ^ j2l) 3. GENETICS ' " 4. NEMATOLOGY ^ ' 2.- IX-OJZ 5. PARASITOLOGY Dated.

I certify that the dissertation entitled "Systematic Studies on the Genera of Indian

Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)" contains the original work done by

Mr. Prince Tarique Anwar. The work was carried out by the candidate under my

supervision. I allow Mr. Prince Tarique Anwar to submit it to the Aligarh Muslim

University, Aligarh, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree

of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY in Zoology.

J A ̂-

Dr. ShahidBin Zeya

Associate Professor

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction '

2. Review of Literature 4

3. Material and Methods 6

4. Abbreviations and Acronyms 8

5. Terms and Measurements 9

6. Explanation of terms 10

7. Key to the Genera 13

8. Genus

I. Genus Alaptus Westwood 15

1. A. deccanensis sp. nov 16

2. A. delhiensis Mani 17

3. A. magnanimus Anandale 18

4. A. pyronus sp. nov 19

5. A. ramakrishnai Mani 20

6. A. ramamurthyi sp. nov 21

Figures 23

II. Genus Camptoptera Foerster 26

1. C. ambrae Viggiani 27

2. C. bangalorensis sp. nov 28

3. C. brevifuniculata Subba Rao 30

4. C. dravida Subba Rao 31

5. C. kannada Subba Rao 32

6. C longifuniculata Wiggiani 33

7. C. matcheta Subba Rao 34

Figures 35

III. Genus Erythmelus Enock 39

1. E. (Erythmelus) flavovarius (Walker) 40

2. E. (Erythmelus) lygivorus Viggiani & Jesu 42

3. E. (Erythmelus) helopeltides Gahan 43

4. E. (Parallelaptera) panis Enock 44

5. E. (Parallelaptera) teleonemiae (Subba Rao) 45

Figures 47

IV. Genus Litus Haliday 49

1. L. huberi Rehmat & Anis 49

2. L. shivalika sp. nov 51

3. L triapitsyni Rehmat & Anis 52

Figures 54

V. Genus Mymar Curtis 56

1. M roopum Hayat & F.R. Khan 56

2. M schwanni Girault 58

3. M taprobanicum Ward 59

Figures 61

VI. Genus Stephanodes Enock 63

1. S. reduvioli (Perkins) 63

Figures 66

9. Conclusion 68

10. References 69

11. Appendix I 30

12. Publication

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Shahid Bin Zeya, Associate professor.

Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University (A.M.U.), Aligarh. under whose able

guidance this work was carried out.

I am thankful to Professor Irfan Ahmad, Chairman, Department of Zoology. A.M.U..

for providing to me all necessary research facilities.

I feel privileged in expressing my profound gratitude to Dr. Mohammad Hayat.

Professor, (retired), Department of Zoology, A.M.U., for his invaluable suggestions and

providing access to the mymarid collections, including types, housed in the 'Insect

Collections' in the Department of Zoology (ZDAMU).

I am especially thankful to the following teachers for their support and encouragement

in my research work: Drs. Kamil Usmani (Associate Professor), Mrs. Ayesha Qamar,

Mrs. Shoeba Binte Anis, Khalid Saifullah, G.G.H.A. Shadab, Dr. Khwaja Jamal and

Mohd. Amir (Assitant Professors).

I also thank Dr. S.M.A. Badruddin (Research Associate in the Network Project on

Insect Biosystematics, Department of Zoology Center of the A.M. U.) and Dr. F.R. Khan

(formely Research Associate in the NPIB; presently Assistant Professor, Al Oassim

University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), for their helps and cooperation in various ways.

I am grateful to Dr. Mohd. Yousuf Scientist F, and Head, Forest Entomology

Division, Forest Research Institute, (F.R.I.) Dehra Dun and Dr. Mohd. Faisal Young

Scientist, F.R.I, Dehra Dun for guidance during my field trips to various places in

Uttarakhand; to Mr. Shabbir Raza Khan, Project Fellow, Banaras Hindu University.

Varanasi, for his support during my field trips in eastern Uttar Pradesh.

Special thanks are due to my colleagues, Miss. Syeda Uzma Usman, Mr. Syed Hassan

Mehdi, Mr. Humayoon Akhtar and F.S.K. Amer, all research scholars in the Department

of Zoology, for their constant support during the preparation of this dissertation.

No words could adequately express all that my grandfather, Janab Ali Hussain, and

my parents, Janab. Mohd. Taiyab and Mrs. Shahjabeen, have done for me. Their prayers,

affection and love played a great role in completion of this work. My heartiest gratitude

also to my uncles, Mr. Mohd. Tasleem Ahmad and Mr. Md. Mukhtar for their boundless

affection and constant encouragement during my research work.

I gratefully acknowledge the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, for the award

of a junior Research Fellowship (JRF) to me under the 'Maulana Azad National

Fellowship' scheme.

Prince Tarique Anwar

1. INTRODUCTION

im'iiaDVcTio^''

INTRODUCTION

In the present scenario, various wide-spectrum insecticides are being indiscriminately

used to combat insect pest populations in agricultural and horticultural fields, to enhance

the productivity level of these crops. But, the long residual effects of these insecticides

often pollute the environment of the fields. Besides, checking the insect pest populations

by the use of insecticides leads to the elimination of the natural enemy complex of the

insect pests fauna. Hence, the only alternative and ecologically safe method is the use of

entomophagus insects in the management of insect pest species which is, now, well

recognized as an effective measure to control the pests.

The insect parasitoids used for the control of pest species belong mainly to the

Ichneumonoidea and Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). The present dissertation concerns the

chalcidoid family Mymaridae.

The members of the family Mymaridae are generally referred to as fairy flies. They are

cosmopolitan in distribution and occur in almost every habitat throughout the year. The

mymarids are small in size, usually less than 1 mm in length, although specimens in some

genera may reach a length of 1.5-2 mm. The mymarids where their biology is known, are

exclusively oophagous, parasitizing the first developmental stage (eggs) in the ontogen\

of other insects, their hosts. The host eggs attacked by mymarids belong to several orders,

such as Lepidoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, Orthoptera and Psocoptera. of

agricultural and horticultural crops (Huber, 1986). However, only one quarter of the

genera of Mymaridae have hosts reported for them (Lin el ai, 2007). Together with some

genera (eg. Trichogramma) of the family Trichogrammatidae, mymarids may be

considered as potentially important in keeping the pest population under control in natural

conditions. Although there are very few records of the use of mymarid species in

im''Rp(OVCTI09^'

Biological Control programme in the world, nevertheless their importance as potential

biological control agents is not diminished. The best example of the use of mymarid

species for successful control of a pest species is that of Anaphes nilens (Girault)

(formally Patasson nitens) for the control of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyllenhal

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a pest of Eucalyptus in South Africa (De Bach & Rosen,

1991).

In spite of their importance in the control of economically important pest species,

mymarids, compared to other chalcidoids, received far less attention taxonomically. The

one obvious reason for this neglect is probably the small size of these parasitoids, which

need special techniques for collecting. However, in the last 40 years, with the

development of newer collecting techniques, such as specially made sweeping nets, pit

fall traps, yellow pan traps, and malaise traps, helped in getting large number of these tiny

insects. This has resulted in greater understanding of these insects leading to valuable

revisional studies on the taxonomy of Mymaridae. (See under Review of literature page 3

of dissertation).

Compared to Palaearctic, Nearctic and Neotropical regions, very little work on the

taxonomy of Indian Mymaridae was done. The mymarid fauna is represented by 98

genera and more than 1400 species across the world (Noyes, 2012). The Indian fauna of

mymarids consists of 26 genera (Appendix I; page 77) and 113 species. This forms

approximately 27% and 8% respectively of the total number of world genera and species

of the family.

Therefore, in the present study, the author attempted to investigate some known taxa

of the family from India. A total of six genera are considered here for taxonomic studies.

These are: Alaptus Westwood, Camptoptera Foerster, Erythmelus Enock, Litus Haliday.

UNT'RQDVCTIO^N'

Mymar Curtis, and Stephanodes Enock. The study led to the preparation of a key to the

included genera. Each genus is briefly diagnosed, and the number of species from the

world and India is also given. The diagnosis of known species and detailed descriptions

of new species with their distribution in various states from India and other parts of the

world are provided. The present dissertation contains a total of twenty-five species

including five new species. All the species are fully illustrated with 74 figures.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

<R!E'VI'E'W OT LI'TE^TVW'

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Review of world literature

Debauche (1948) and Kryger (1950) provided historical reviews of the family. Schauff

(1984) and Gibson (1986) discussed the relationships of mymarids and provided evidence

that mymarids are among the most primitive of chalcidoids and apparently the sister

group to the rest of Chalcidoidea. Huber (1986) reviewed the history, systematics.

biology and hosts of Mymaridae. Generic keys of the Mymaridae have been provided for

different geographical regions. Annecke & Doutt (1961),world genera; Subba Rao &

Hayat (1983 &1985), Oriental genera; Schauff (1984), Holartic genera; Noyes &

Valentine (1989), New Zealand genera; Yoshimoto (1990), New world genera; Huber

(1997), Nearctic genera; and Triapitsyn & Huber (2000), Palaearctic genera. Huber

(1988) studied the species groups oi Gonatocerus Nees in North America with a revision

of the sulphuripes- and ater- groups. Lin et al. (2007) provided a generic review of the o'l

Australian Mymaridae and recognized 45 genera and listed the Australian species in each

genus. Review of Schizophragma Ogloblin and the non-Australian species of Slethyniim

Enock of the family Mymaridae have been provided by Huber (1987). Huber & Lin

(1999) provided world review of the Camptoptera group of genera. Huber (2003)

provided reviews on the genus Chaetomymar Ogloblin (Palaeoneura Waterhouse).

Recently, Triapitsyn made important contributions to the taxonomy of world Mymaridae.

The following publications deserve mention: Triapitsyn & Beardsley (2000) on Hawaiian

species of Anagrus; Triapitsyn 8c Berezovskiy (2007) on Oriental and Australian

Acmopolynema and Palaeoneura; Triapitsyn et al. (2006) on Nearctic species of

Neomymar- Triapitsyn (2010) on Palaearctic and Oriental Ooctonus; and Triapitsyn el

al. (2010) on Neotropical Gonatocerus Nees.

JdE'VI'EU^ 0<r LITfE'KATV'RiE

Review of Indian literature

Kieffer (1913) described the first Indian species of Gonatocerus Nees. Subba Rao

(1966) recorded known and new species of mymarid parasites of Empoasca devastans

Distant from India. Subba Rao (1984) described some new species of Oriental

Mymaridae. Studies on Indian Mymaridae were made by Subba Rao & Kaur (1959) and

Narayanan et al. (1960). Key to Oriental genera of family Mymaridae were provided by

Subba Rao & Hayat (1983) which includes 27 genera and 90 species. Further, Subba Rao

& Hayat (1986) catalogued 20 genera and 60 species in the family Mymaridae mostly

from India and adjacent countries of Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Mani

(1989), redescribed 20 out of 24 genera known at that time. Later on, Subba Rao (1989).

studied Indian Mymaridae and described several new species. Zeya & Hayat (1995)

revised the Indian species of Gonatocerus Nees and recognized 39 species in four species

groups ater-, sulphuripes-, litoralis-, and asulcifrons-gxon^s. Recently, 6 more species are

added to this genus by Zeya & Khan (2011) and Zeya & Anwar (in press). Hayat (1992)

recorded some genera and species from India and Hayat & Anis (1999a) recorded the

genera Ptilomymar Annecke & Doutt and Himopolynema Taguchi, from India. These

authors have also published, on Indian species of Polynema Haliday and Acmopolymma

Ogloblin (Hayat & Anis, 1999b, c). Later on, Hayat et al. (2003) added three new species

of Himopolynema. Rehmat et al. (2009) recorded the genus Litus Haliday from India, and

described two species. Rehmat & Anis (2011) recorded Pseudanaphes Noyes &

Valentine, based on the material collected from north-eastern India. Hayat & Khan (2009)

recorded the genus Eubroncus for the first time from the country. The genera Dicopus

Enock and Omyomymar Schauff were added to the Indian fauna by Manickavasagam &

Rameshkumar (2011), based on the collection made from Tamil Nadu.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

'MJiTE'RJACJl'A(D 'M'ETJf&DS

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Material

The present study is based on a large number of specimens mainly collected during

2007-2012 from several states of India. Types and determined material of some species

present in the ZDAMU collections were also examined.

Methodology

Techniques for collection and preservation summarized below are largely adapted from

those given by Noyes (1982).

Collection.

The specimens were mainly collected by a sweep net with very fine mesh, which were

then sucked up by an aspirator and then killed in ethyl acetate fumes. Some specimens were

directly transferred from the net to 80% alcohol.

Preparation of card mounts.

This procedure mainly consists of attaching the specimen with its thorax on a rectangular

card (14 X 5mm) using water soluble glue.

Preparation of slide mounts.

The following procedure for slide-mounting given by Noyes (1982) is followed,

i. Remove wings with the help of a fine needle and place it in a small drop of Canada

balsam on the slide.

ii. Knock off the antenna and head, attach it to the side of the thorax with the help of

Canada balsam,

iii. Transfer the specimen in 10% KOH in a cavity block and leave it for 48 hours.

'MJ^TEIUJlLAy^^ 'M'ETKODS

IV.

VI.

vu.

VIM.

XI .

XII .

X l l l .

Remove KOH and put one drop of glacial acetic acid for 10 min.

Remove acetic acid and add distilled water for 10 min.

Add an equal quantity of distilled water and 80% alcohol for 10 min.

Remove the solution, and add 80% alcohol for 10 min.

Remove 80% alcohol and add 90% alcohol for 10 min.

ix. Remove 90% alcohol and add 96% alcohol for 10 min.

X. Remove 96% alcohol and add absolute alcohol for 10 min.

Then put one drop of clove oil 10 min.

Repeat the last process for 10 min.

Mount on slide with Canada balsam with parts arranged on slide as shown in the

figure below.

Gaster with Genitalia

Thorax + Gaster Head

xiv. Dry slide for about two weeks, and then place coverslips on the parts. Then allow the

Canada balsam to dry for two weeks in a thermostat at 40°C.

J\ 4. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS "̂^

V

A(BfB<!(E,V!JA'TIO!HSJiJ<ÂOW^y^S

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

The following abbreviations of names of various body parts were used for giving relative

measurements of these structures.

The following abbreviations are used:

Fl, F2, etc. = funicle segments 1, 2, etc.

The Acronyms used for the Museums are given below.

BMNH

ICZN

ISNB

MCSG

MRAC

NBAII

NHMW

NPC

QMB

USNM

ZDAMU

ZSl

The Natural History Museum, London, U.K

International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature

Royal Institute for Natural Sciences of Belgium Museum, Belgium

Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy

M usee Royal d'Afrique Centrale, Tervueren, Belgium

National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insect, Bangaluru, India

Natural History Museum, Vienna

National Pusa Collection, Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural

Research Institute, New Delhi, India.

Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Australia

United States National Museaum of Natural History, Washington D.C..

U.S.A.

Insect Collections, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University.

Aligarh, India.

Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata (-Calcutta), India

5. TERMS AND MEASUREMENTS

'MJ&LSJiWD ^•LJISV'R.'E^^'EWS

TERMS AND MEASUREMENTS

Terminology

The terminology followed here is explained in figures 1-8. This is largely in

agreement with that used by Huber (1988). The 'mesosoma' includes thorax and

propodeum (morphologically the first segment of abdomen), and 'metasoma" includes

petiole (morphologically the second segment of abdomen) and gaster. Thus the thirst

tergum of gaster (Tl) is the third tergum of abdomen. Further, ovipositor refers to the

second valvifer and the second valvula combined.

Measurements

The total body length is given in millimeters. All other measurements were taken

directly from slide mounted parts with the help of an occular micrometer (linear scale,

100 divisions) placed in the eye piece of a compound microscope. In most cases the

measurements were taken at lOOx magnification, but for very small structures, the

magnification was 400x, and this has been mentioned in the text. These measurements

can be used for calculating only the relative dimensions of various structures. However,

one division of the occular micrometer at lOOx (lOx objective and lOx eye piece) equals

0.00988 mm; and at 400x (40x objective and lOx eye piece) equals 0.0025 mm.

K 6. EXPLANATION OF TERMS ^

V

. vertex anterior ocellus

posterior ocellus

supraorbital trabecula

eye transverse trabecula preorbital trabecula

torulus medial face

subantennal sulcus

gena

lateral face

mandible

clava

longitudinal Aagellum sensilla

pedicel

scape

radicle

Figs 1 and 2. Explanation of terms. Females: generalised Mymaridae.l, head front view; 2, antenna.

10

fore wing length

submarginal vein stigmal vein

marginal vein

Fore wing , _ _ ^ _ . - ^ r - ^ - * ^ ^ width

>chaeta ^••^^v-̂ -̂ vv-̂ A,;:̂ ^ • ; . s ^ < o \ N > y ; y hypochaeta

marginal fringe'

hind wing length

marginal fringe

coxa

tarsus

trochanter

Figs 3-5. Explanation of terms. Females: generalised Mymaridae. 3, fore wing; 4, hind wing-5, leg.

11

pronotum

"?i^ !°K^ n mesoscutum side lobe —' notaular line

axilla

anterior—I scutellum posterior -•

metanotum

spiracle propodeum

petiole

ovipositor

.w

Fig. 6. Explanation of terms. Female: generalised Mymaridae. 6, mesosoma & metasoma..

12

7. KEY TO THE GENERA

Key to some Indian genera of the Mymaridae (females).

1. Tarsi 4- segmented (Fig. 74) 2

-. Tarsi 5- segmented (Fig. 22) 4

2. Gaster subsessile, mesophragma projecting into gaster (Fig. 44); female funicle

with 5 or 6 segments, rarely with 4 segments; metanotum with dorsellum

projecting over propodeum as a small triangular lobe; female with hypopygium

extending to apex of gaster or beyond (Fig. 39) Erythmelus Enock

-. Gaster with well developed petiolate (Fig. 59); female funicle with 6 segments

(Fig. 56); metanotum with dorsellum not projecting over propodeum; female with

hypopygium not extending to apex of gaster or beyond (Fig. 59) 3

3. Fore wing stalked with expanded membranous apex (Fig. 61); hind wing

filamentous (Fig. 66), or abbreviated (Fig. 62), with marginal setae absent; scape

at least 5x as long as wide, without sculpture on inner surface, longer than head,

constricted medially (Fig. 56) Mymar Curtis

-. Fore wing not stalked with apex expanded or not expanded, venation short

extending about one quarter length of wing (Fig. 70); hind wing not filamentous

(Fig. 71); scape at most 2.25x as long as wide with, imbricate, rasp like sculpture

on inner surface, not longer than head and not constricted medially (Fig. 69)

Stephanodes Enock

4. Gaster petiolate; mesophragma not projecting into gaster (Fig. 27); funicle with

7-segments or apparently 6 segments (F2 usually ring like) (Fig. 24); axillae

advanced into side lobe of mesoscutum (Fig. 32) Camptoptera Foerster

13

X^rro T3m iwoijin^g^y^'Jiji

-. Gaster sessile or subsessile; mesophragma projecting into gaster (Fig. 11); funicle

with 5 or 6 segments (Fig. 8); axillae not advanced into side lobe of mesoscutum

5

5. Fore wing with posterior margin behind venation deeply excised; funicle with 5

segments (Fig. 14) Alaptus Westwood

-. Fore wing with posterior margin behind venation not excised (Fig. 47); funicle

with 6 segments (Fig. 46) Litus Haliday

14

8. GENUS

I. GENUS ALAPTUS WESTWOOD

genus MJi'PTVS 'West-wood

Genus ALAPTUS Westwood

(Figs 7-22)

Alaptus Westwood, 1839: 79. Type species Alaptus minimus Westwood, by monotypy.

Parvulinus Mercet, 1912: 332. Type species Parvulinus auranti Mercet, by monotypy.

Synonymy by Girault (1913)

Metalaptus Malenotti, 1917: 339. Type species Metalaptus torquatus Malenotti. by

monotypy. Synonymy by Girault (1917)

Diagnosis

Female. Body length, 0.22-0.44 mm. Antennal formula, 1151 (Figs 8, 13, 18), but

exceptionally a minute additional segment may occur. Mesophragma projecting into

gaster (Figs 11, 16, 21). Fore wing with posterior margin behind venation usually deeply

and abruptly excised and its hind margin usually straight so that the fore wing beyond

basal excision widens evenly and continuously towards wing apex (Figs 9, 14, 19). Tarsi

5- segmented (Fig. 22). Gaster sessile or subsessile (Figs 11, 16, 21).

Male. Flagellum 8-segmented.

Hosts. Unknown for Indian species. Elsewhere reported from Psocoptera and Coccoidea.

The records from Coccoidea need confirmation (Lin et al, 2007)

Distribution. Worldwide.

Species. World, 54. India, 6 (including the 3 new species described in this dissertation.)

genusALA^PTVS %'estwood

Indian species

1. Alaptus deccanensis sp, nov. (Figs 7-11)

Description

Female. Length 0.32 mm. Head dark brown. Antenna with radical, scape, pedicel, Fl and

F2 pale yellow; F3-F5, clava yellowish brown. Mesosoma pale yellow. Wings

subhyaline. Legs, including coxae, pale yellow. Metasoma with ovipositor dark brown.

Head, in frontal view, 1.14x as broad as high (Fig. 7); transverse and supraorbital

trabeculae divided into seven pieces; torulus touching eye margin laterally. Mandible

bidentate with dorsal tooth distinctly shorter than ventral tooth. Antenna (Fig. 8) with

scape 3x as long as broad; pedicel 1.5x as long as broad, subequal in length to Fl, F3 and

F4 individually; funicle segments all longer than broad, but F2 longest and F5 shortest;

clava 3x as long as broad, slightly shorter than F3-F5 combined, with 3 longitudinal

sensillae.

Mesosoma. Mesosoma (Fig. 11) 0.76x metasoma; mid lobe of mesoscutum with two

setae; side lobe of mesoscutum and axilla each with one seta. Fore wing (Fig. 9) 12x as

long as broad, with a line of setae running slightly below the anterior wing margin, rest

of the disc bare; marginal fringe about 4x as long as wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 10) 20x

as long as broad, with a line of setae extending from slightly distal to venation and ending

before apex of wing; marginal fringe 6.6x as long as wing width.

Metasoma. Ovipositor (Fig. 11) originates from base of gaster and exserted to about

one-third length of gaster; ovipositor about 1.58x as long as gaster and, 2.14x as long as

mid tibia.

Relative measurements at 400x (holotype slide): head width, 72; head height, 63;

mesosoma length, 65; fore wing length:width, 205:17; marginal fringe length, 65; hind

wing length:width, 201:10; marginal fringe length, 66; fore tibia length, 40; mid tibia

genus MJîPTVS Westwood

length, 63; mid basitarsus length, 15; hind tibia length, 69; gaster length, 85; ovipositor

length, 135.

Male. Unknown.

Material examined. Holotype, female (on slide under 4 coverslips, slide No. MYM. 69):

INDIA: KARNATAKA: Mandya (MT), 3.V.2012, Coll. K. Veenakumari. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Karnataka.

Etymology. The species name is derived from the Deccan Plateau of the country as the

holotype was collected from Karnataka.

Comments. This new species differs from all other Indian species, particularly in having

larger body size (0.32 mm) and shorter antennal clava which is slightly shorter than the

combined lengths of F3-F5. In rest of the Indian species, including the new ones

described here, the body length is at most 0.25 mm, and the antennal clava is almost equal

to the length of funicle.

2. Alaptus delhiensis Mani

Alaptus delhiensis Mani, 1942: 160. Female. Holotype female, India, New Delhi (NPC).

Alaptus delhiensis Mani: Subba Rao & Hayat, 1983: 131; 1986: 180, catalogue.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.25 mm. Head (dorsum) 2x as broad as long. Antennal scape distinctly

shorter than clava; pedicel equal to F1-F2 combined; all funicular segments almost

quadrate, F4 and F5 larger than F3; clava slightly longer than F1-F5 combined.

Male. Unknown.

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution: India: New Delhi.

genus ^L^<FTVS aVestwooif

Comments. The above diagnosis is based on the original description and the illustration

given by Mani (1942: fig. 22).

Alaptus delhiensis Mani differs from A. ramakrishnai Mani in having quadrate

funicular segments, and clava slightly longer than F1-F5 combined. In A. ramabishnai:

funicular segments are all longer than broad, and clava about as long as F2-F5 combined.

3. Alaptus magnanimus Anandale

Alaptus magnanimus Anandale, 1909: 299. Male. Holotype male, India, Calcutta (ZSI).

Alaptus magnanimus Anandale: Subba Rao & Hayat, 1983: 131 catalogue. Subba Rao &

Hayat, 1986: 180, catalogue.

Diagnosis

Male. Length 0.21 mm. Head, in dorsal view, broader than long. Antenna hairy; scape

sub-cylindrical; F3, F5 and F6 distinctly longer than broad, F4 quadrate. Pronotum about

4x as broad as long, slightly longer than anterior scutellum. Fore wing with a row of setae

along anterior margin and one along posterior margin, the disc with 2 setae. Metasoma

stout and rounded at apex; first tergite with a single bristle on either side near the

posterior margin; last tergite with a pair of unequal bristles on either side.

Female. Unknown.

Host. Unknown

Distribution: India: West Bengal.

Comments. The above diagnosis is based on the original description and illustration

(Annandale, 1909: figure). As this species was described from a male, it is not possible to

compare it with the other species based on females.

genus M^'PTVS iVestwood

A. Alaptus pyronus sp. nov. (Figs. 12-16)

Description

Female. Length, 0.27 mm. Head pale yellow; eyes large and black; area around mouth

margin yellow. Antenna with radicle, scape and pedicel pale yellow, flagellum brown.

Mesosoma pale brown with longitudinal striations. Wings subhyaline. Legs, including

coxae, pale yellow. Metasoma with gaster pale brown in basal half, brown in distal half;

ovipositor brown.

Head, in frontal view, transverse, 1.27x as broad as high (Fig. 12); supraorbital

trabeculae divided into seven pieces; torulus touching eye margin. Mandible unidentate.

Antenna (Fig. 13) with scape 2.5x as long as broad, almost as long as pedicel and Fl

combined; pedicel 2.2x as long as broad, longer than all funicular segments individually;

all funicular segments longer than broad, F2 slightly longer the Fl and F3; clava about 4x

as long as broad, subequal to preceding 4 funicular segments combined, with three

longitudinal sensillae.

Mesosoma. Mesosoma (Fig. 16) 0.85x as long as metasoma. Fore wing (Fig. 14) IIx

as long as broad; disc almost bare except two setae in the middle; marginal fringe 4.78x

as long as wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 15) 18.12x as long as broad; disc with a row of

setae along anterior margin beginning slightly distal to venation and ending slightly

before apex of wing; marginal fringe 7.5x as long as wing width.

Metasoma. Ovipositor (Fig. 16) slightly exserted beyond apex of gaster, 0.89x as long

as gaster and 1.25x as long as mid tibia.

Relative measurements at 400x (holotype slide): head width, 70; head height. 55;

Mesosoma length, 57; fore wing length:width, 155:14; marginal fringe length, 67; hind

wing length:width, 145:8; marginal fringe length, 60- fore tibia length, 29; mid tibia

genus JAL^(PTVS Westwood

length, 48; mid basitarsus length, 16; hind tibia length, 47; metasoma length. 67;

ovipositor length, 60.

Material examined. Holotype, female (on slide under 4 coverslips, Slide No. MYM. 29):

INDIA: UTTARAKHAND: Dehra Dun, Sahaspur, ll.xi.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar.

(ZDAMU).

Male. Unknown.

Host. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Uttarakhand.

Etymology. The species name is an arbitrary combination of letters.

Comments. Alaptus pyronus sp. nov. comes close to Alaptus ramakrishnai Mani, but

differs in having the pedicel shorter than Fl and F2 combined; funicular segments all

longer than broad; F1-F5 slightly decreasing in length distally. In A. ramakrishnai: Fl

and F2 quadrate, F3-F5 slightly longer than broad, and F1-F5 increasing in length

distally.

5. Alaptus ramakrishnai Mani

Alaptus ramakrishnai Mani, 1942: 159. Female. Holotype male=female, India,

Coimbatore, (NPC).

Alaptus ramakrishnai Mani: Subba Rao & Hayat, 1983: 131 catalogue.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.25 mm. Head broader than long. Scape distinctly shorter than clava;

pedicel as long as Fl and F2 combined; Fland F2 quadrate, shorter than F3; F3-̂ F5

subequal, and each slightly longer than broad; clava about as long as F2-F5 combined.

Male. Unknown.

Host. Mealybug [?] on coconut.

genus JiL^(PTVS iVestwood

Distribution. India: Tamil Nadu.

Comments. The above diagnosis is based on the original description and illustration

given by Mani, (1942: fig.21).

6. Alaptus ramamurthyi sp. nov. (Figs 17-22)

Description

Female. Length 0.25 mm. Head dark brown; area around mouth margin pale brown.

Antenna pale yellow with clava brown. Mesosoma with pronotum dark brown;

mesoscutum and scutellum yellow except anterior third of mesoscutum brown,

mesoscutum weakly reticulated; propodeum yellow. Wings subhyaline. Legs, including

coxae, pale yellow. Metasoma brown, basal three intersegmental areas yellow; ovipositor

brown.

Head, in front view, 1.29x as broad as high (Fig. 17); transverse and supraorbital

trabeculae divided into seven pieces; torulus touching eye margin laterally. Mandible

unidentate. Antenna (Fig. 18) with scape about 2.25x as long as broad; pedicel ].5x as

long as broad, distinctly longer than all funicular segments individually; all funicular

segments longer than broad, F2 longest; clava pointed at apex, about 4.5x as long as

broad and slightly shorter than F1-F5 combined, with 3 longitudinal sensillae.

Mesosoma. Mesosoma (Fig. 21) 0.71 x as long as metasoma; mid lobe of mesoscutum

with a pair of setae, side lobe and axilla each with one seta. Fore wing (Fig. 19) I0.3x as

long as broad; disc bare with a line of five setae on disc; marginal fringe 5x as long as

wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 20) about 18x as long as broad, disc with a line of setae

extending apex; marginal fringe about 8x as long as wing width.

genus MJi'PTUS Westwood

Metasoma. Metasoma rounded at apex (Fig. 21); ovipositor originates from base of

gaster; ovipositor strongly exserted, the exserted part about one-third length of gaster

(Fig. 21), and about 1.4x as long as gaster and 2.27x as long as mid tibia.

Relative measurements at 400x (holotype slide): head width, 71; head height, 55;


wing length:width, 150:8; marginal fringe length, 65; mid tibia length, 43; mid basitarsus

length, 10; hind tibia length, 41; metasoma length, 70; ovipositor length, 98.

Male. Unknown.

Material examined. Holotype, female (on slide under 4 coverslips. Slide No.. MYM.

30): INDIA: UTTARAKHAND: Dehra Dun, Harbatpur, 14.xi.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar.

(ZDAMU).

Hosts. Unknown.


Etymology. The species is named after Dr. V. V. Ramamurthy, lARI, New Delhi, a

renowned insect taxonomist and presently Co-ordinator of the Network Project on Insect

Biosystematics (NPIB).

Comments. Alaptus ramamurthyi sp. nov. is close to Alaptus deccanensis sp. nov., but

differs in smaller body size (0.25 mm); in the relative dimensions of funicular segments.

scape 2.25x as long as broad, pedicel robust; and in having the clava slightly shorter than

funicle. In A. deccanensis: body larger in size (0.32 mm); relatively longer funicle

segments, especially the long F2; scape about 2.5x as long as broad; pedicel normal, not

robust and clava slightly shorter than F3-F5 combined.

8

10

Figs 7-11. Alaptus deccanemis sp. nov. holotype female: 7, head front view; 8, antenna; 9, fore wing; 10, hind wing; 11, mesosoma & metasoma.

23

13

.. \^ ' -^'

12

\

/ .•

\ \

\ \

15

y.^^^^c^-

# / •

/ /

16

Figs 12-16. Alaptus pyronus sp. nov. holotype female: 12, head front view; 3, antenna; 14, fore wing; 15, hind wing; 16, mesosoma &. metasoma.

24

Figs 17-22. Alaptus ramamurthyi sp. nov. holotype female: 17, head front view; 18, antenna; 19, fore wing; 20, hind wing; 21, body; 22, tarsus.

25

II. GENUS CAMPTOPTERA FOERSTER y

V

genus CA'M(eT(yPTE^ Toerster

Genus CAMPTOPTERA Foerster

(Figs. 23-35)

Camptoptera Foerster, 1856: 116, 119. Type species Camptoptera papaveris Foerster, by

monotypy.

Stichothrix Foerster, 1856: 117. Type species Stichothrix cardui Foerster, by monotypy.

Synonymy by Anneclce & Doutt (1961).

Pteroclisis Foerster, 1856: 144. Unnecessary replacement name for Camptoptera, thought

to have been preoccupied by Camptopteris in Botany.

Eomymar Perkins, 1912: 26. Type species E. muiri Perkins, by monotypy. Synonymy by

Huber& Linn (1999).

Congolia Ghesquiere, 1942: 320. Type species Congolia sycophila Ghesquiere. by

original designation. Synonymy by Debauche (1949).

Sphegilla Debauche, 1948: 62. Type species Sphegilla franciscae Debauche, by original

designation. Synonymy by Yoshimoto (1990).

Wertanekiella Soyka, 1961:87. Type species Wertanekiella brevicornis Soyka. Synonymy

under Sphegilla by Mathot (1969).

Zemicamptoptera Ogloblin & Annecke, 1961: 24. Type species Camptoptera

{Zemicamptoptera) semialbata Ogloblin & Annecke, by original designation.

(As subgenus of Camptoptera)

Staneria Mathot, 1966:214. Type species Staneri diademata Mathot by original

designation. Synonymy by Huber & Linn (1999).

Diagnosis

Female. Body length, 0.22-0.44 mm. Mandible with one pointed tooth (Fig. 23).

Antennal formula, 116-71; F2 usually ring like (Figs 24, 29, 33). Mesosoma with axillae

genus C^W'PTCXFTE'RA Toerster

advanced into side lobes of mesoscutum (Fig. 32); mesophragma not extending into

gaster (Figs 27, 32). Fore wing with posterior margin almost always concave giving the

wing a distinctly curved apex (Figs 25, 30, 34); proximal macrochaeta absent and distal

macrochaeta often relatively short and fine. Tarsi 5-segmented. Metasoma with a well

developed petiole (Figs 27, 32).

Male. Flagellum 10-segmented, with F2 and often F4 ring like.

Hosts. Unknown for Indian species. Elsewhere reported from eggs of Scolytidae and

Buprestidae (Coleoptera), and possibly Cicadellidae, Aleyrodidae (Hemiptera), and

Thripidae (Thysanoptera).


Species: World, 79. India, 7, including one new species.

Indian species

1. Cantptoptera ambrae Viggiani

Camptoptera ambrae Viggiani, 1978: 152. Female. Holotype female, India, Madras

[=Tamil Nadu], Kodaikanal (MSNG).

Camptoptera ambrae Viggiani: Subba Rao & Hayat, 1983: 133; 1986: 183 catalogue.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.47 mm. Body dark brown. Antenna yellowish brown. Legs yellowish

brown. Antenna with scape cylindrical and curved; pedicel as long as Fl; all funicular

segments longer than broad except ring-like F2; clava 2.5x as long as broad, slightly

longer than F5-F7 combined, with four longitudinal sensillae. Mesosoma as long as

gaster; mesoscutum and scutellum sculptured with polygonal reticulation; propodeum

smooth with two median carinae, and with one long seta on either side behind spiracles.

genus CJi^'PTO'PT^'RA Toerster

Fore wing 14x as long as broad with marginal fringe 5x as long as wing width. Ovipositor

originates at middle of gaster and not exserted at apex.

Male. Unknown.

Hosts. Unknown.


Comments. Camptoptera ambrae differs from C. longifuniculata Viggiani, in having

petiole smooth and without lamellae; pedicel 2x as long as Fl. In C longifuniculata

petiole sculptured with a pair of lamellae; pedicel half the length of F1.

2. Camptoptera bangalorensis sp. nov. (Figs 23-27)

Description

Female. Length 0.33 mm. Body dark brown to black. Antenna yellowish brown. Wings

fumate (Figs. 35, 36). Legs with coxae yellowish brown.

Head (Fig. 23) 1.3x as broad as high in frontal view; transverse trabecula and

supraorbital trabecula not divided into pieces; frontovertex transversely reticulate; one

pair of setae between posterior ocelli, one pair of setae slightly above anterior ocellus.

Antennal scape 3.5x as long as broad; pedicel 1.75x as long as broad, subequal to Fl:

funicular segments Fl, F2 and F3 slender and distinctly longer than broad; F2 longest;

F5-F7 shorter and slightly swollen, clava more than 3x as long as broad, subequal to F5-

F7 combined with two longitudinal sensillae (Fig. 24).

Mesosoma. Mesosoma (Fig. 27) longer than gaster, notuli incomplete, mesoscutum

with polygonal reticulation, scutellum with sides transversely sculptured and medially

with polygonal reticulation; propodeum 0.55x as long as scutellum, medially smooth,

sides with polygonal reticulation. Fore wing (Fig. 25) 16.8x as long as broad; disc nearly

bare, with 8-10 setae in a row in middle; marginal fringe 6x as long as wing width.

genus CJi^VrO'FrE'Ufl 'Toerster

Hind wing (Fig. 26) 33.6x as long as broad, with marginal fringe 10.4x of wing width. All

coxae reticulated.

Metasoma. Petiole strongly reticulated; ovipositor (Fig. 27) 0.6Ix as long as mid tibia.

and hardly exserted.

Relative measurements at 400x (holotype slide): head width, 65; head height, 50:


wing length:width, 168:5; marginal fringe length, 52; fore tibia length, 37; mid tibia

length, 65; mid basitarsus length, 12; hind tibia length, 63; petiole, 15; gaster length, 55:


Male. Unknown.

Material examined. Holotype, female (on slide under 4 cover slips. Slide No. MYM.

80): INDIA: KARNATAKA: Bengaluru, NBAII, 28.xii.2010. (YPT), Coll. K.

Veenakumari. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Unknown.


Etymology. The species name is derived from Bangalore, the earlier name of Bengaluru,

the holotype locality.

Comments. Camptoptera bangalorensis sp. nov. is a distinct from all the described

Indian species. It appears close to Camptoptera phillipinna Taguchi (1972) in having

same body length, colour and relative dimensions of antennal segments, but it differs

from the later in having complete supraorbital trabecula, absence of petiole lamellae and a

longer propodeum, about 0.55x of scutellum. In Camptoptera phillipinna: supraorbital

http://28.xii.2010

genus CJ^^'FTCXFTE'KJi Toerster

trabecula (=orbital trabecula) divided into nine small pieces; petiole with well developed

lamellae; propodeum shorter more than 3x of scutellum length.

3. Camptoptera brevifuniculata Subba Rao (Figs 28-32)

Camptoptera brevifuniculata Subba Rao, 1989: 162. Female, male. Holotype female.

India, Karanataka, Mudigree (BMNH).

Redescription

Female. Length 0.36 mm. Body dark brown to black. Antenna yellow except clava

brown. Wings fumate. Legs with coxae yellow.

Head (Fig. 28), in frontal view, 1.3 Ix as broad as high. Antennal scape about 2x as

long as broad, slightly longer than pedicel and Fl individually; Fl longest, all funicular

segments longer than broad except F2 (the ring segment); clava 2.7 Ix as long as broad

and longer than F5-F7 combined.

Mesosoma. Mesosoma longer than gaster (Fig. 32); mesoscutum sculptured with

horizontal striations; notauli incomplete reaching to anterior half of disc; each axilla with

one seta; propodaeum smooth. Fore wing (Fig. 30) 16.63x as long as broad, with marginal

fringe about 6x as long as wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 31) 21x as long as wide, with

marginal fringe about 6x of wing width.

Metasoma (Fig. 32) with petiole 2.66x as long as broad, not sculptured, with a pair of

long lamellae; ovipositor (Fig. 32) not exserted, 0.55x as long as mid tibia.

Male. Similar to female except for antenna and genitalia. Linear sensilla on all funicular

segments present, as described by Subba Rao (1989).

Relative measurements at 400x (from slide): head width, 75; head height, 57; mesosoma

length, 70; fore wing length:width, 183:11; marginal fringe length, 65; hind wing

length:width, 182:9; marginal fringe length, 52; fore tibia length, 35; mid tibia length, 54;

genus CAM(pTaFI^<Hyi Tocrster

mid basitarsus length, 11; hind tibia length, 26; gaster length, 57; petiole length, 17:


Specimen examined. INDIA: KARNATAKA: Mandya, 1 female (on slide under 4

coverslips. Slide No., MYM. 79), 28.iii.2012, (MT). Coll. K. Veenakumari. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Unknown.


Comments. I have not seen the types of Camptoptera brevifuniculata, but the specimen

recorded here agrees well with the original description and figures given by Subba Rao

(1989). However, C. brevifuniculata Subba Rao is close to C longifuniculata Viggiani.

but it differs in having different relative dimentions of the antennal segments; differently

sculptured mesosoma; and smooth and lamellate petiole.

4. Camptoptera dravida Subba Rao

Camptoptera dravida Subba Rao, 1989: 163. Female. Holotype female, India.

Karanataka, Mudigere (BMNH).

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.5 mm. Head dark brow; eyes red. Antenna pale brown. Mesosoma dark

brown. Wings hyaline. Legs pale brown. Metasoma with petiole dark brown, except distal

one-eighth of gaster pale. Antennal scape slightly longer than pedicel; pedicel subequal to

F5 and F6 individually; all funicular segments thin, longer than broad except F2 (ring

segment); clava more than 5x as long as broad, subequal to F4-F6 combined.

Mesoscutum with notauli present in anterior half of disc; both mesoscutum and scutellum

with transverse striations; scutellum wider than long. Fore wing 14.5x as long as broad

with marginal fringe 5.5x as long as wing width; disc proximally bare, distally with two

irregular rows of 16-18 setae.

http://28.iii.2012

genus CA^^l^<yFTE<RJ[ Toerstcr

Metasoma with short petiole, smooth and without lamellae; gaster longer than

mesosoma; ovipositor not exerted.

Male. Similar to female except for antennae and genitalia. Fore wing broader with three

rowsofdiscal setae.

Hosts. Unknown.


Comments. The diagnosis of the species is based on the original description and figures

given by Subba Rao (1989: figs 73-79). Camptoptera dravida appears close to

Camptoptera kannada Subba Rao, but differs mainly in having scape slightly longer than

pedicel and with incomplete notauli. In Camptoptera dravida scape more than 2x as long

as pedicel and mesoscutum with notauli complete.

5. Camptoptera kannada Subba Rao

Camptoptera kannada Subba Rao, 1989: 163. Female. Holotype female, India.

Karnataka, Mudigere (BMNH).

Camptoptera kannada Subba Rao: Manickavasagam et al, 2011: 396.

Diagnosis

Female. Length, 0.32-0.35 mm. Body dark brown. Head 1.4x as broad as long. Antennal

scape cylindrical, more than 2x as long as pedicel; all funicular segments, except ring-like

F2, longer than broad, F3 the longest; clava about 4x as long as broad, subequal to F5-F7

combined, and with two longitudinal sensillae. Mesoscutum with complete notaular lines;

mesoscutum anteriorly transversally striated and basally more or less alutaceous;

scutellum reticulated forming polygonal cells; propodeum alutaceous with one seta on

either side behind the spiracles. Fore wing uniformly faintly fumate, with one row of 10-

12 setae in the mesal area of the disc; marginal fringe more than 8x as long as wing

genus CA^êTO'FT^'Rfl Toerster

width. Hind wing 12x as long as broad; disc bare except a row of very minute setae along

anterior and posterior margins.

Metasoma with petiole short, smooth and without lamellae; gaster slightly longer than

mesosoma.

Male. Unknown.

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Kamataka.

Comments. The above diagnosis is based on the original description and figures given by

Subba Rao (1989: figs 86-89). This species appears close to Camtoptera dravida but

differs by the characters given under Camtoptera dravida.

6. Camptoptera longifuniculata Viggiani

Camptoptera longifuniculata Viggiani, 1978: 153. Female. Holotype female, India,

Madras [=Tamil Nadu], Kodaikanal (MSNG).

Camptoptera longifuniculata Viggiani: Subba Rao & Hayat, 1983: 183; 1986: 133

catalogue.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.67 mm. Body dark brown. Antennal scape yellowish brown. All legs

except coxae and femora yellowish brown. Antennal scape narrow, 2,5x as long as broad;

Fl 2x as long as pedicel; F3 longest; clava 3.5x as long as broad, slightly longer than F6-

F7 combined, with two longitudinal sensillae. Mesoscutum transversely reticulate; notauli

well developed, with a pair of setae; side lobes of mesoscutum and axilla each with one

seta; scutellum with reticulate sculpture; propodeum smooth with two submedian carinae

and four setae centrally in between the carinae. Fore wing 11.75x as long as broad with

marginal fringe 4x as long as wing width. Gaster larger than mesosoma; petiole with

genus CJiiMiPTOPTE^ Toerster

lamella, but without apparent sculpture; ovipositor originating from middle of gaster and

not exserted.

Male. Unknown.

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Tamil Nadu

Comments. The diagnosis of this species is based on the original description and

illustrations given by Viggiani (1978: fig. Ill 1-4). This species is apparently close to

Camptoptera ambrae but differs from the later by the characters given under the

comments to C. ambrae.

7. Camptoptera matcheta Subba Rao (Figs 33-35)

Camptoptera matcheta Subba Rao, 1989: 161. Female. Holotype female, India.

Kamataka, Mudigree (BMNH).

Camptoptera matcheta Subba Rao: Anwar & Zeya, 2012: 52, females, Uttarakhand

record.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.5 mm. Body dark brown to black. Antenna with radicle, scape and

pedicel brown, flagellum dark brown. Wings fumate. All legs with coxae brown. Head

1.4x as broad as high in front view. Antenna (Fig. 33) with scape more than 4x as long as

broad; all funicular segments longer than broad, except F2 (the ring segment); F3 longest:

clava slightly shorter than 3x as long as broad and longer than F5-F7 combined, with two

longitudinal sensillae. Mesoscutum with notauli incomplete; scutellum with polygonal

sculpture with mesal area alutaceous; propodeum smooth with two parallel vertical

carinae joined distally with a fine horizontal carina, and one long seta present on either

side of propodeum below the spiracles. Fore wing (Fig. 34) 10.86x as long as broad, with

genus CA^'PTOPT^'Kii Toerster

marginal fringe 3.47x as long as wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 35) 22.72x as long as

broad, with marginal fringe 7x as long as wing width. Coxae reticulate. Metasoma with

petiole 1.29x as broad as long with transverse reticulation and without lamellae:

ovipositor 1.39x as long as mid tibia, not exserted.

Male. Similar to female except for antenna and genitalia. Linear sensilla on all funicular

segments present as described by Subba Rao (1989).

Relative measurements 400x (from slide): head width, 80; head height, 60; thorax length.

110; fore wing length:width, 250:23; marginal fringe length, 80; hind wing length:width.

250:11; marginal fringe length, 77; fore tibia length, 70; mid tibia length, 46; mid

basitarsus length, 15; hind tibia length, 84; gaster length, 102; petiole, 38; ovipositor

length, 64.

Material examined. INDIA: UTTARAKHAND: Dehra Dun, Sahaspur, I female (on

slide under 4 coverslips. Slide No. MYM. 34), ll.xi.2011. Coll. P.T. Anwar; Dehradun,

Harbatpur, 1 female (on slide under 4 coverslips. Slide No. MYM. 35), 14.xi.2011, Coll.

P.T. Anwar. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Karnataka, Uttarakhand.

Comments. The diagnosis of the species based on the 2 females collected from Dehradun

and agree fairly well with the original description and illustrations given by Subba Rao

(1989: figs 94-100). This is a very distinct species and differs from all Indian species in

having fore wing matchet-shaped with apex of the disc pointed.

A

27

Figs 23-37. Camptoptera bangaloremis sp. nov. holotype female: 23, head frontal view; 24, antenna; 25, fore wing; 26, hind wing; 27, mesosoma &. metasoma.

36

O' ^^^^^^'^^

29 28

30

/ ^^

31 32

Figs 28-32. Camptoptera brevifuniculata Subba Rao, female: 28, head front view; 29, antenna; 30, fore wing; 31, hind wing; 32, mesosoma & metasoma.

37

^tc^c

33

•-^ws^"'

34

35

Figs 33-35. Camptoptera matcheta, female: 33, antenna; 34, fore wing; 35, hind wing.

38

III. GENUS ERYTHMELUS ENOCK

-iViON

genus 'E'R^fDm'ELVS "Enoci

Genus ERYTHMELUS Enock

(Figs 36^4)

Erythmelus Enock, 1909: 454. Type species Erythmelus goochi Enock, by monotypy.

Parallelaptera Enock, 1909: 454. Type species Parallelaptera panis Enock, by

monotypy. Synonymy by Schauff, 1984: 45.

Enaesius Enock, 1909: 456. Type species Enaesius agilis Enock, by designation of Gahan

& Fagan, 1923: 50. Treated as a subgenus of Erythmelus by Debauche, 1948; 193.

197. Synonymy by Schauff, 1984: 45.

Anthemiella Girault, 1911: 187. Type species Anthemiella rex Girault, by original

designation. Synonymy by Schauff, 1984: 45.

Eurythmelus: Ogloblin, 1934: 243. Lapsus calami.

Erythmelellus Viggiani & Jesu, 1985: 487. Type species Erythmelus lygivorus Viggiani

& Jesu, by original designation. As subgenus of Erythmelus.

Diagnosis

Female. Body length, 0.22-0.44 mm. Head (Fig. 40) very short in dorsal and lateral

views; gena extremely narrow behind eye. Mandible reduced to a small stub and without

teeth. Antennal formula 114-61 (Fig. 36, 41). Metanotum with dorsellum distinct and

more or less projecting over propodeum as a small triangular lobe (Fig. 44). Tarsi

4-segmented. Caster subsessile (Fig. 44); hypopygium extending to apex of gaster or

beyond (Fig. 39).

Male. Flagellum with 10 or 11 segments, very rarely with 9 segments.

Hosts. Unknown for Indian species. Elsewhere reported from Tingidae and Miridae

(Hemiptera) (Triapitsyn, 2003).


Species. World, 57. India, 5.

39

genus 'E<ROnMM.'EL'VS 'Enoci

Indian species

1. Erythmelus {Erythtnelus)flavovarius (Walker) (Figs 36-39)

Panthus flavovarius Walker, 1846: 52. Female. Lectotype female, designated by Graham,

1982: 219, ?Ireland.

Erythmelus goochi Enock, 1909: 455. Female. Lectotype female, designated by Graham.

1982: 220. HoUoway, London, England (BMNH), synonymy by Triapitsyn, 2003;

17.

Enaesius parvus Soyka, 1932: 83. Female. Holotype female, Valkenburg, Limburg.

Holland (?NHMW). Synonymy by Graham, 1982: 219.

Erythmelus (Enaesius) dichromocnemus Novicky, 1953: 13, Female. Holotype female.

Poland. Synonymy by Triapitsyn, 2003: 17.

Erythmelus spinosus Mathot, 1969: 15. Female. Holotype female, Riezes, Belgium

(ISNB). Synonymy by Triapitsyn, 2003: 17.

Erythmelus empoascae Subba Rao, 1966: 192. Female, male. Holotype female, India.

Delhi (NPC). Synonymy by Triapitsyn, 2007: 48.

Erythmelus flavovarius (Walker): Manickavasagam et al.. 2011: 394, Puducherry record.

Anwar & Zeya, 2012: 52, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh record.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.42-0.55 mm. Body pale yellow to dark brown as follows. Head dark

brown. Antenna pale yellow. Pronotum brown; mid lobe of mesoscutum dark brown in

anterior half and partly yellow to light brown in posterior half; lateral lobes of the

mesoscutum with dark brown patch anteriorly; axilla, anterior scutellum medially, and

metanotum dark brown; propodeum brown to dark brown. Legs including coxae pale

yellow to light brown.

Gaster in basal half or so pale yellow, rest dark brown.

40

genus 'EICjmm'ELVS <Enoci

Antenna (Fig. 36) with all funicular segments longer than wide; F4 usually without

longitudinal sensilla (rarely with 1 longitudinal sensillum: Triaptsyn, 2003); F6 usually

with 1 (but sometimes with 2 longitudinal sensillae: Triaptsyn, 2003); clava with 4

longitudinal sensillae (5 longitudinal sensellae: Triapitsyn, 2003). Fore wing (Fig. 37)

about 5x as long as wide, with apical part of disc (about one-third) more or less evenly

setose, and remainder of disc with few setae. Hind wing (Fig. 38) 14-15x as long as wide.

Ovipositor (Fig. 39) as long as gaster, barely exserted.

Relative measurements at 400x (from slide): head width, 75; head height, 57; mesosoma


length:width, 182:9; marginal fringe length, 52; fore tibia length, 35; mid tibia length. 54;

mid basitarsus length, 11; hind tibia length, 26; gaster length, 57; petiole length. 17;


Male. Unlcnown.

Material examined. INDIA: UTTARAKHAND: Tehri Garhwal, Byasi, 1 female (on

slide under 3 coverslips. Slide No. MYM. 46), 17.xi.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar. UTTAR

PRADESH: Aligarh, 1 female (on slide under 4 coverslips. Slide No. MYM. 47),

25.xii.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Empoasca devastans (Subba Rao, 1966). Elsewhere: Pilophorus perplexus,

Polymerus cognatus, Heterocordylus tibialis and Asciodema obsoleta (Miridae)

(Triapitsyn, 2003).

Distribution. India: Delhi, Puducherry, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh. (Nearly

Cosmopolitan).

Comments. The diagnosis of the species is based on the two females collected from

Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. These agree fairly well with diagnosis recently given by

Triapitsyn (2003), hence considered here conspecific with E. flavovarius Walker.

41

http://25.xii.201

genus 'E(S<om<MELVS 'Enocj

However, this species resembles very closely E. lygivorus, but differs from the later in

having mid lobe of mesoscutum bark brown in anterior half and pale yellow to light

brown in distal half, and in the distribution of setae in fore wing.

2. Erythmelus {Erythmelus) lygivorus Viggiani & Jesu (Figs. 40-44)

Erythmelus {Erythmelellus) lygivorus Viggiani & Jesu, 1985: 487. Female. Holotype

female, Papiano, Perugia, Italy.

Erythmelus {Erythmelellus) lygivorus Viggiani & Jesu: Manickavasagam et al, 2011:

397, Kerala record. Anwar & Zeya, 2012: 52, Uttar Pradesh record.

Erythmelus (Erythmelus) lygivorus Viggiani & Jesu: Triapitsyn, 2003: 29.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.76 mm. Head dark brown. Antenna with scape and pedicel pale yellow;

radicle and funicular segments brown; clava dark brown. Mesosoma dark brown; mid

lobe of mesoscutum with a light brown, narrow and transverse, median band.

Head rectangular in frontal view (Fig. 40). Antenna (Fig. 41) with all funicular

segments distinctly longer than broad; F1-F5 without longitudinal sensilla; F6 longest

with 2 longitudinal sensillae; clava slightly more than 3x as long as broad and with 5

longitudinal sensillae. Forewing (Fig. 42) about 4.2 x as long as wide, with apical part of

disc (about one-fourth to one-third) more or less evenly setose, remainder of disc almost

bare, only with a complete row of setae along anterior margin and a few microtrichia

along posterior margin in distal half. Hind wing (Fig. 43) 17x as long as wide. Ovipositor

slightly exserted (Fig. 44), about l.lx as long as gaster, and about 2.2x as long as mid

tibia.

Relative measurements at lOOx (from slide): head width, 26; head height, 28; mesosoma

length, 45; fore wing length:width, 70:18; marginal fringe length. 13; hind wing

42

genus 'E'Rnmm'ELVS 'Enoci

length:width, 70:4; marginal fringe length, 12; 11; hind tibia length, 28; gaster length, 47;


Male. Unknown.

Material examined. INDIA: UTTAR PRADESH: Aligarh, Panjipur, 1 female (on slide

under 4 coverslips, Slide No. MYM. 40), 23.ix.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman.

(ZDAMU).

Hosts. Lygus pratensis Linnaeus and L. rugulipennis Poppius (Miridae) (Viggiani & Jesu,

1985).

Distribution. India:Kerala, Uttar Pradesh. (France, Hungary, Italy, Spain)

Comments. This is very distinctive species and differs from all the Indian species in

having dark brown mesoscutum with a light narrow and transverse median band. The

specimen from Aligarh agrees well with the diagnosis provided by Triapitsyn (2003).

3. Erythmelus(Erythmelus) helopeltidis Gahan

Erythmelus helopeltidis Gahan, 1949: 75. Female, Male. Holotype female. Malaysia

(USNM).

Erythmelus helopeltidis Gahan: Subba Rao, 1970: 662. Subba Rao & Hayat, 1983: 134.

Subba Rao & Hayat, 1986: 184.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 1.00 mm. Body brown with base of the gaster pale yellow. Antennal

scape and pedicel yellowish brown; flagellum dark brown to black. Legs with femora

dark brown; tibiae and tarsi pale yellow.

Antenna with scape more than 4x as long as broad; all funicular segmems longer than

broad; F2-F5 subequal and 1.5x as long as broad individually; F6 longest and more than

2x as long as broad with one longitudinal sensilla. Fore wing 4.5-5x as long as broad;

43

http://23.ix.2011

genus 'E'Rnmm'ELVS "Enoci

disc almost bare except few setae at wing apex. Metasoma slightly longer than mesosoma

and head combined; ovipositor long, with a large basal loop.

Male. Length 1.0 mm. Briefly described by Gahan (1949). Similar to female except

antenna with scape 2x as long as broad; flagellar segments subequal and 3-4x as long as

broad individually. Fore wing with numerous discal setae extending from near its middle

to apex.

Host. Ophiomyia lantanae (Diptera).

Distribution. India: Andhra Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand.

Comments. This species was described by Gahan (1949) from eggs of Helopeltis

cinchonae from Malaysia. It was recorded by Subba Rao (1970) from India (Kathgodam),

from 3 females reared from eggs of Ophiomyia lantanae.

4. Erythmelus (Parallelaptera) panis (Enock)

Parallelaptera panis Enock, 1909: 454. Female. Holotype, female, England, Woking

(BMNH).

Parallelaptera foucarti Mathot in Demaire, 1973: 30. Female. Holotype, female, Rwanda,

?Rubona, (Musee Royal d'Afrique Centrale, Tervueren, Belgium). Synonymy by

Triapitsyn, 2003:39.

Parallelaptera panchama Subba Rao, 1989: 165. Female. Holotype, female. India.

Coimbatore (BMNH).

Erythmelus (Parallelaptera) panis (Enock): Manickavasagam et ai, 2011: 397, Kerala

record.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.6 mm. Head dark brown. Antenna testaceous. Mesosoma and

metasoma lighter.

genus 'BRCfBiM'EL'VS 'Lnock^

Antenna with scape slender, about 4x as long as broad; pedicle slightly longer than

F1-F2 combined; Fl and F2 subequal, distinctly shorter than rest of the funicular

segments; F5 longest, subequal to F1-F3 combined, with a pair of longitudinal sensillae;

clava 4x as long as broad, slightly longer than F4-F5 combined with [?] 4 longitudinal

sensillae. Fore wing 6.63-6.6x as long as broad, with marginal fringe slightly more than

3x as long as wing width.

Male. Similar to female except for antenna and genitalia. Funicle six segmented

(Triapitsyn, 2003).

Hosts. Corythucha ciliate, Stephanitis pyri, Habrochila ghesquierei, Tingis ampliata

(Tingidae) (Triapitsyn, 2003).

Distribution. India: Kerala, Tamil Nadu.

Comments. The above diagnosis is based on the original description by Enock (1909)

and redescription by Triapitsyn (2003).

Triapitsyn (2003) commented that this species is close to E. rex and showing variability

in the dimentions of the funicular segments in the female antenna and such variability

may be due to polyphagy, body size or geographical factors.

5. Erythmelus (Parallelaptera) teleonemiae (Subba Rao)

Parallelaptera teleonemiae Subba Rao, 1984: 253. Female, male. Holotype female, India,

Bangalore (BMNH).

Parallelaptera polyphaga Livingstone & Yacoob, 1990: 631. Female, male. Holotype

female, India, Kamataka, Chamundi Hills (Type?). Synonymmy by Hayat, 1992:

88.

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.40-0.45 mm. Body brown. Antenna pale brown. Tarsi pale brown.

genus 'E<g:mm'ELVS 'Enoci

Head in transversal view 1.25x as broad as long (50:54). Funicle 5- segmented; F1-F4

very short, subequal; F5 longest, much broader than preceding funicular segments. Fore

wing slightly infumate; longest marginal fringe slightly more than 3.3x as long as wing

width.

Male. Similar to female except for antenna and genitalia.

Host. Stephanitis pyri (Tingidae).


Comments. The diagnosis of the species is based on the original description (Subba Rao.

1984) and notes provided by Triapitsyn (2003). This species is close to E. panis Knock as

Triapitsyn (2003), commented that this species may eventually has to be a synonym

Enock's species.

36

38

39

Figs 36-39. Erythmelus flavovarius (Walker), female: 36, antenna; 37, fore wing; 38, hind wing; 39, gaster showing hypopygium

47

41

Figs 40-44. Erythmelus lygivorus Viggiani, female: 40, head; 41, antenna; 42, fore wing; 43, hind wing; 44, mesosoma & metasoma.

48

IV. GENUS UTUS HALIDAY

genus LITVS JMiday

Genus LITUS Haliday

(Figs 45-55)

Litus Haliday, 1833: 269, 345. Type species Litus cynipseus Haliday, by monotypy.

Neolitus Ogloblin, 1935: 60. Type species Neolitus argentinus Ogloblin, by original

designation. Synonymy by Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy, 2004: 3.

Diagnosis

Female. Body length, 0.35-0.60 mm. Body robust highly scelotized. Head (Fig. 45) and

mesosoma strongly reticulated. Mandible uni or bidentate. Funicle 6- segmented without

longitudinal sensilla; clava unsegmented with 2-^ longitudinal sensillae (Figs 46. 52).

Mesoscutum (Figs 49, 55) usually with distinct notauli; scutellum with distinct anterior

and posterior parts. Mesophragma projecting into gaster and usually with apex rounded

(Figs 50, 55). Fore (Figs 47, 53) and hind wings (Figs 48, 54) long and narrow, with very

long marginal fringe. Metasoma (Figs 50, 55) with petiole broader than long. Gaster with

first tergite long. Legs with coxae (Fig. 55) strongly reticulate; fore tibia with anterior

apical tooth or curved projection; tarsi 5- segmented.

Host. Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy, 2004).

Distribution: Worldwide.

Species: World, 18. India, 03 (including 1 new species).

Indian species

1. Litus huberi Rehmat & Anis (Figs 45-50)

Litus huberi Rehmat & Anis, in Rehmat et al, 2009: 370. Female. Hoiotype femak

India: Assam (NPC).

genus LITVS JfaCiday

Diagnosis

Female. Length, 0.41 mm. Body dark brown to black, shiny, except distal three tergites

of gaster brownish-yellow. Mandibles pale yellow. Antennae dark brown. Fore wing

lightly infuscate, hyaline in apical third. Hind wing subhyaline. Legs with coxae black;

femora and tibiae brown to dark brown; tarsi brownish. Ovipositor sheaths dark brown.

Mandible unidentate, longer than malar space. Antenna with radicle very short and

broader than long; scape cylindrical (Fig. 46), about 3x as long as pedicel; F1-F4 slightly

longer than broad; F5 and F6 subquadrate; clava 2.3x as long as broad.

Mesosoma. Mesoscutum (Fig. 49) distinctly shorter than scutellum, without notaular

lines; posterior scutellum with raised reticulate sculpture compare to sculpture of anterior

scutellum. Fore wing (Fig. 47) narrow, apically pointed and about 22x as long as broad;

disc almost bare except for 2-3 setae distal to venation. Hind wing (Fig. 48) 24.5x as long

as broad. Legs with coxae strongly sclerotized.

Metasoma. Metasoma (Fig. 50) distinctly longer than mesosoma; first tergite of gaster

long and occupying nearly three-fourths of gaster length; ovipositor (Fig. 50) slightly

exserted beyond apex of gaster.

Male. Unknown.

Relative measurements at lOOx (paratype slide): Head width, 13; head height, 10;

mesosoma length, 15; fore wing length:width, 45:2; marginal fringe length, 16; hind wing

length:width, 43:1.5; marginal fringe length, 20; mid tibia length, 10; mid basitarsus

length, 2; hind tibia length, 9; metasoma length, 20; ovipositor length, 19.

Material examined. Paratype: Female (on slide under 3 coverslips): INDIA: ASSAM.

Guwahati, Borkusi, 28.X.2008, Coll. F.R. Khan. (ZDAMU, Reg. No. HYM/CH. 577).

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Assam.

genus CITUS J{a[iday

Comments. Diagnosis of the species is based on the original description and study of the

paratype. This species appears to be very close to Litus sutil Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy

(2004) in having narrow wings but it differs from L. sutil in many characters (Rehmat et

al, 2009).

2. Litus shivalika sp. nov. (Figs 51-55)

Description

Female. Length 0.37 mm. Body completely dark brown. Antenna dark brown. Wings

subhyaline, anterior and posterior wing margins yellowish brown. Fore wing below

venation with yellowish brown infuscation. Legs with coxae brown except tarsi yellowish

brown.

Head (Fig. 51) strongly reticulated, 1.1 Ox as broad as high; frontovertex 0.64x head

width; torulus touching eye margin; vertex and temple with polygonal reticulation; areas

between toruli and above clypeus transversely reticulated; Mandible unidentate with

pointed apex. Antenna (Fig. 52) with scape 6x as long as broad, and slightly less than 3x

as long as pedicel; F1-F4 longer than broad; F5 and F6 subquardate; F2 longest and

slightly longer than F3; clava 2.5x as long as broad, as long as F4-F6 combined and with

two longitudinal sensillae.

Mesosoma. Mesosoma strongly sculptured with polygonal reticulation; mesoscutum

with complete notaular lines; coxae strongly sclerotized (Fig. 55) with reticulate

sculpture.

Metasoma. Metasoma (Fig. 55) slightly longer than mesosoma; ovipositor (Fig. 55)

originates slightly distal to basal half of gaster, barely exserted at the apex, 0.8x length of

gaster and 0.8x mid tibial lengths.

Male. Unknown.

genus wrVS^faMay

Relative measurements at 400x (holotype slide): Head width, 70; head height, 64; thorax


length:width, 280:9; marginal fringe length, 120; fore tibia length, 50; mid tibia lerngth.

75; mid basitarsus length, 12; hind tibia length, 93; gaster length, 75; ovipositor length,

60.

Material examined. Holotype, female (on slide under 4 coverslips. Slide No. MYM. 26):

INDIA: UTTARAKHAND: Garhwal, Khirsu, 17.xi.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Unknown.


Etymology. The name of the species is derived from Shivalik range of Himalayan belt, as

the holotype was collected from Garhwal region of Uttarakhand.

Comments. This new species appears close to L. cynipseus Haliday in having body and

antennal colour more or less similar, and also in having fore wing slightly wider near the

apex. But it differs by following characters: body length 0.37 mm; antenna with all

funicular segments longer than broad; scape subequal to clava, and propodeum evenly

reticulated. In L. cynipseus: by size is greater, varies from 0.50-0.60 mm; antenna with

FI very short, F2-F5 longer than broad individually; scape distinctly longer than clava;

propodeum reticulated but smooth posteriorly (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy, 2004).

2. Litus triapitsyni Rehmat and Hayat

Litus triapitsyni Rehmat & Hayat, in Rehmat et ai, 2009: 373. Female. Holotype female.

India: Assam (NPC).

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.44mm. This is very similar to L. huberi in body colour; but differs in

the following characters: Anterior margin of frons biconvex with a row of large denticles.

genus LITVS TfaMay

Scape more than 3x as long as pedicle; all funicular segments longer than broad.

Ovipositor arised from nearly base of gaster, strongly exerted at apex, the exerted part

0.39x as long as gaster.

Male. Unknown.

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Assam.

Comments. This species was described from a single specimen. Therefore, the above

diagnosis is based on the original description and figures (Rehmat et al., 2009). However

this species appears to be very distinctive and differs from the other species in having a

row of denticles on the frons.

46 45

49

48

50

Figs 45-50. Litus huberi Rehmat & Anis, paratype female: 45, head dorsal view; 46, antenna; 47, fore wing; 48, hind wing; 49, mesosoma; 50, metasoma.

54

i .

53

54

51

55

Figs 51-55. Litus shivalika sp. nov. holotype female: 51, head front view; 52, antenna; 53, fore wing; 54, hind wing; 55, mesosoma & metasoma.

55

V. GENUS MYMAR CURTIS

genus 9^'y'9dJ^<I(,CKnis

Genus MYMAR Curtis

(Fig. 56-66)

Mymar Curtis, 1829: 112. Type species Mymar pulchellus Curtis, by designation of the

International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) Opinion 729.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 22 (2): 82-83.

Pterolinononyktera Malac, 1943: 51. Type species Pterolinononyktera obenbergeri

Malac, by original designation. Synonymy by Annecke & Doutt, 1961: 26.

Diagnosis

Female. Body length, 0.58-1.02 mm. Antenna with 6-segmented funicle (Fig. 59); scape

(Figs 56, 60, 63, 64) longer than width of head and constricted medially. Fore wing

stalked with expanded membranous apex; expanded membranous apex dark brown in

about apical half beyond venation (Fig. 57, 61, 65); hind wing filamentous beyond

hamuli, usually without membrane (Figs 58, 62, 66). Tarsi 4-segmented. Petiole long and

slender (Fig. 59).

Male. Flagellum 11-segmented (Fig. 63).

Hosts. Delphacidae and Cicadellidae (Hemiptera).


Species. World species, 11. India, 3.

Indian species

1. Mymar roopum Hayat & F.R. Khan (Fig. 56-59)

Mymar roopum Hayat & F.R. Khan, 2008: 330. Female. Holotype female, India: Uttar

Pradesh (NPC).

Mymar roopum Hayat & F.R. Khan: Manickavasagam et. a/., 2011: 396.

genus 'M'Y'MJAIlCunis

Diagnosis

Female. Length 0.65-0.70 mm. Head pale brown to yellow; head trabeculae dark brown.

Antenna pale yellow; scape brown along dorsal margin, Fl and F2 pale brown; clava dark

brown. Thoracic sutures brown; mesoscutum brown; axillae and mesopleuron posteriorly

washed with brown; scutellum medially and posterior half or so brownish; propodeum

pale brown. Gaster, except basal half, dark brown. Fore wing infuscate. Legs pale yellow;

tibiae and tarsal segments 1-3 pale brown; last tarsal segment of all legs brown.

Head (Fig. 59) 1.27x as broad as long; pedicel slightly longer than Fl; F3-F6 each at

least 3x as long as broad; clava about 3x as long as broad and subequal to combined

length of F4-F6 (Fig. 56).

Mesosoma. Mesosoma (Fig. 59) slightly shorter than gaster.

Metasoma. Ovipositor (Fig. 59) slightly exerted and 0.76x as long as gaster.

Relative measurements at lOOx (paratype slide): head width, 17; head heigth. 15;

mesosoma length, 27; fore wing width, 9; marginal fringe length, 35; hind wing

length:width, 57:1; fore tibia length, 23; mid tibia length, 34; mid basitarsus length, 12;

hind tibia length, 41; gaster length, 23; petiole, 15; ovipositor length, 24.

Male. Unknown

Material examined. Paratype: female (on slide under 2 coverslips, left fore wing

missing): INDIA: UTTAR PRADESH: Pilibhit, Roop Pur Kirpa, 24.ix.2006. Coll.

S.M.A. Badmddin & F.R. Khan. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Unknown.

Distribution. India: Uttar Pradesh.

Comments. This species comes close to M taprobanicum Ward in the keys to Mymar

species provided by Annecke (1961) and Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2001). But, differs

http://24.ix.2006

genus 9A'fMj\'iiCums

from that cosmopolitan species in relative dimensions of various structures. For detail

comments see Hayat & Khan (2008).

2. Mymar schwanni Girault (Figs 60-62)

Mymar schwanni Girault, 1912: 166. Female, Australia ,Victoria (QMB)

Mymar schwanni Girauh: Subba Rao & Hayat, 1986: 188 catalogue. Hayat, 1992: 87.

Hayat et al, 2008: 328; Manickavasagam et ai, 2011: 396. Rameshkumar ei al.,

2011: 772. Anwar & Zeya, 2012: 52.

Diagnosis

Female. Length, 0.72 mm. Body brownish yellow; head yellowish brown; transverse

trabecula dark brown; antenna with brown, radicle and scape basally slightly pale white,

rest brown; mesosoma brown except pronotum pale brown; fore wing apical ly with

brown infuscation, covering more than half length of the expansion (Fig. 61); hind wing

abbreviated just beyond the hamuli (Fig. 62).

Head 1.25x as broad as long; antenna (Fig. 60) with pedicel distinctly longer than Fl;

clava 4x as long as broad, and as long as F3-F6 combined; mesosoma distinctly shorter

than metasoma but subequal to gaster; ovipositor slightly exerted beyond the apex of

gaster and about 0.70-0.90x as long as gaster.

Relative measurements at lOOx (from slide): head width, 18; head heigth, 13; mesosoma

length, 24; fore wing length:width, 90:11; marginal fringe, 30; hind wing length:width,

15:1; fore tibia length, 28; mid tibia length, 36; mid basitarsus, 10; hind tibia length. 35;

gaster length, 26; petiole, 14; ovipositor length, 23.

Male. Similar to female except sexual characters and antenna.

Material examined. INDIA: UTTAR PRADESH: Saharanpur, Gagalhedi, 1 female,

16.xi.2011, Varanasi, Napura Kalan, 1 female, 21.iii.2012, Coll. P.T. Anwar.

genus M'YiMJ^QlCMms

Hosts. Unknown

Distribution. India: Andhra Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala, Odisha, Puducherry, Tamil

Nadu, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments. The species is apparently close to M pulchellum Curtis. But differs in having

dark spot in the fore wing occupies much more than half length of the blade. In M.

pulchellum dark spot on the fore wing occupies less than that of half length of blade.

3. Mymar taprobanicum Ward (Figs. 63-66)

Mymar taprobanicus Ward, 1875: 197. Female, Sri Lanka (?).

Mymar indica Mani, 1942: 160. Holotype male, India, Delhi (NPC)

[For extralimital synonymy Annecke (1961) and Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2001) may

be consulted]

Diagnosis

Female. Length, 0.74-0.95 mm. Body brown to dark brown; head with transverse

trabecula dark brown, area around the mouth pale brown; antenna with radicle, scape and

pedicel pale brown, flagellum brown to dark brown; mesosoma brown except yellowish

brown pronotum; fore wings (Fig. 65) hyaline except rather less than the apical half of the

disc with brown infuscation; hind wing (Fig. 66) filamentous beyond the hamuli, without

apparent membrane and with one long apical seta; legs with coxae pale brown except mid

and hind tibiae brown; petiole pale brown; gaster in basal two-third brown rest dark

brown.

Head 1.5x as broad as high. Antenna (Fig. 64) with pedicel subequal to Fl; F3 less

than 3x as long as broad and slightly shorter than F6; clava slightly more than 5x as long

as broad, slightly longer than F3-F6 combined. Mesosoma slightly shorter than gaster.

Ovipositor slightly exerted, and 0.85x as long as gaster.

genus CMnnMJiliCurtis

Relative measurements at 400x (from slide): head width, 85; head heigth, 68; mesosoma

length, 98; fore wing length;width, 365:35; marginal fringe length, 140; hind wing

length:width, 250:4; fore tibia length, 97; mid tibia length, 125; mid basitarsus length, 36:

hind tibia length, 145; gaster length, 100; petiole, 50; ovipositor length, 95.

Male. Similar to female except antenna and genitalia. Antenna slender, filiform with

eleven flagellar segments (Fig. 63).

Material examined. INDIA: UTTAR PRADESH: Aligarh, 1 female (on slide), 1 female,

23.xi.2011; 1 female (on slide), 23.xi.2011; Aligarh, Panjipur, 1 female, 23.ix.20Il; 1

female, 28.X.2011; 1 female (on slide), 28.X.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman.

UTTARAKHAND: Dehra Dun, Sahaspur, 1 female, ll.xi.201l; 1 female (on slide).

1 l.xi.2011, Coll. P.T. Anwar. (ZDAMU).

Hosts. Not known from India. Laodelphax striatella Fallen (Delphacidae), Nephotettix

cincticeps (Uhler) (Cicadellidae), and Nilaparvata lugens (Stal) (Delphacidae)

(Hemiptera).

Distribution. India: Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,

Odisha, Pudhucherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand.

(Cosmopolitan).

Comments. This species is nearly cosmopolitan in distribution but is restricted mainly to

warmer climates.

http://23.xi.2011

http://23.xi.2011

http://23.ix.20Il

Figs 56-59. Mymar roopum Hayat & F.R. Khan, paratype female: 56, antenna; 57, fore wing; 58, hind wing; 59, head with mesosoms &. metasoma.

61

62

Figs 60-66. 60-62 Mymar schwanni Girault, female: 60, antenna ; 61, fore wing; 62, hind wing. 63-66 Mymar taprobanicum Ward: 63, male antenna; 64, female antenna; 65, female fore wing; 66, female hind wing.

62

VI. GENUS STEPHANODES ENOCK

genus S'FE'PTfAl^CyiyES 'Enoci

Genus STEPHANODES Enock

(Figs. 67-74)

Stephanodes Enock, 1909: 457. Type species Stephanodes elegans Enock, by monotypy.

Eustephanodes Ogloblin, 1967: 194. Type species Eustephanodes missionicus Ogloblin,

by original designation. Synonymy by Yoshimoto, 1990: 72.

Masonana Yoshimoto, 1990: 63. Type species Masonana polynemoides Yoshimoto, by

original designation. Synonymy by Huber & Fidalgo, 1997: 34.

Stephanodes Enock: Subba Rao &. Hayat, 1983: 140; 1986: 190 catalogue.

Diagnosis

Female. Body length. 0.80-1.05 mm. Stephanodes belongs to the Polynema group of

genera. Antenna with 6 segmented funicle; scape (Fig.69) with inner surface rasp like,

with imbricated sculpture; vertex (Fig.67) with large, shallow depressions outside each

ocellus; mesosoma (Fig.72) smooth, shiny, somewhat higher than wide, and in lateral

view fairly convex dorsally; prothoracic spiracle advanced forward of posterolateral

margin of pronotum and flush with surface. Tarsi 4- segmented (Fig.74).

Male. Flagellum 11-segmented (Fig.68).


Host. Nabidae (Heteroptera).

Indian species

1. Stephanoides reduvioli (Perkins) (Figs. 67-74)

Polynema reduvioli Perkins, 1905: 196. Female. Lectotype female, Hawaiian Islands

(BMNH).

63

genus S'TE(P}[JH'H(yUES 'Enoc^

Stephanodes reduvioli (Perkins): Girault, 1913: 12. New, 1976: 1. Huber & Fidalgo.

1997: 37, 41. Hayat & Anis, 1999c: 325. Beardsley & Huber, 2000: 17. Triapitsyn

& Huber, 2000: 614. Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy, 2002: 7. Manickavasagam et. al.,

2011:397.

Diagnosis

Female. Body yellowish brown to brown; antenna with scape, pedicle and F1-F3

yellowish brown, F4-F6 and clava brown to dark brown.

Head (Fig.67) 1.08x as broad as long; antenna (Fig. 69) scape 3x as long as broad,

subequal to Fl; pedicel 1.5x as long as broad; all funicular segments longer than broad.

F2 longest; clava slightly more than 3x as long as broad, longer than F5-F6 (Fig. 69);

mesosoma (Fig.72) longer than gaster; ovipositor slightly exerted beyond the apex of

gaster about 0.66x as long as gaster (Fig.73).

Male. Similar to female except for sexual characters; subequal funicular segmenta with

longitudinal sensillae (Fig.68).

Relative measurements at 63x (from slide): Head length, 12; head width, 13; thorax

length, 11; fore wing length:width, 76:19; hind wing length:width, 25:2.5; fore tibia

length, 20; mid tibia length, 20; mid basitarsus length, 10; hind tibia length, 23; gaster

length, 24; petiole, 8; ovipositor length, 16.

Specimens examined. INDIA: UTTAR PRADESH: Aligarh, 2 females (on slide),

21.v. 1977; 1 female (on slide), iii.1981. Coll. M. Hayat; Aligarh, 1 female (on slide).

03.iv.l979; 1 female (on slide), 07.ix.l979; Bareilly, 1 female (on slide), 07.x. 1978. Coll.

M. Verma. UTTARAKHAND: Dehra Dun, 1 female (on slide), 10.iv.l978; Mussoorie 1

female (on slide), 1 l.iv.l978. Coll. M. Verma.

64

genus ST^VHyilÔCiyES 'Enoci

Hosts. Unknown

Distribution. INDIA: Bihar, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu,

Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand.

Comments. This is the only species reported so far from India. Hayat (1992) recorded

this species under the name S. imbricatus. Later on this was synonymised under S.

reduvioli (Huber & Fidalgo, 1997). Hayat & Anis (1992c) recorded this species from

several Indian states.

65

•,v--.•••"-•*.•;• v- .̂-- • • -^-v-.i

• ^-.VVv^\\^^\\\V:^\•.• '^^^\\Y\ • ••

70 • " -

^^'^''/M///'^'' 1\

Figs 67-71. Stephanodes reduvioli Perkins: 67, head dorsal view; 68, male antenna showing imbricated scape; 69, female antenna showing imbricated scape; 70, female fore wing; 71, female hind wing.

66

72 73

Figs 12-1 A. Stephanodes reduvioli Perkins, female: 72, mesosoma; 73, metasoma with petiole; 74, leg showing 4 segmented tarsus.

67

9. CONCLUSION

C0'NCLVS10U<

CONCLUSION

The preliminary study on some genera of mymarids leads the author to draw the

following conclusions on the Systematics of the Indian Mymaridae.

> The mymarids are exclusively oophagous, parasitizing the first developmental

stage (eggs) in the ontogeny of other insects, their hosts. The host eggs attacked

by mymarids belong to several orders, such as Lepidoptera, Hemiptera,

Coleoptera, Diptera, Orthoptera and Psocoptera, of agricultural and horticultural

crops (Huber, 1986).

> The best example of a mymarid species for successful control of a pest species is

that of Anaphes nitens (Girault) for the control of Gonipterus scutellatus

Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a pest of Eucalyptus in South Africa (De

Bach & Rosen, 1991).

> The mymarid fauna is represented by 98 genera and more than 1400 species

across the world (Noyes, 2012). But, the Indian fauna of mymarids consists of 26

genera and 113 species. This forms approximately 27% and 8% respectively of

the total number of the world genera and species of the family.

> In the present dissertation a total of five new species have been described; three

species in the genus Alaptus Westwood namely,, A. deccanensis, A. pyronus, A.

ramamurthyi; and one species each in Camptoptera Foerster and Litus Haliday.

as C. bangalorensis and Lshivalika respectively.

> However, an intensive survey and collection in agricultural and horticultural belts

in various agro-climates in India is likely to yield more a large number of new as

well as already described species of the Mymaridae.

68

10. REFERENCES

<I{'E'F'E<Sf:!N'CES

REFERENCES

Annandale, N. 1909. Description of a minute Hymenopterous Insect from Calcutta.

Records of the Indian Museum, 3: 299-300, Plate XXIII.

Annecke, D.P. 1961. The genus Mymar Curtis (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). South African

Journal of Agricultural Science, 4: 543-552.

Annecke, D.P. & Doutt., R.L. 1961. The genera of Mymaridae. (Hymenoptera:

Chalcidoidea). Entomology Memoirs, Department of Agricultural Technical

Services, Republic of South Africa, 5: 1-71.

Anwar, P.T. & Zeya, S.B. 2012. Record of some species of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera:

Chalcidoidea) from Different States of India. Bionotes, 14 (2): 52 & 53.

Curtis, J. 1829. A guide to an arrangement of British Insects. London. 256 pp.

De Bach, P. & Rosen, D. 1991. Biological Control of Natural Enimies. 2nd Edition:

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.440 pp.

Debauche, H.R. 1948. Etude sur les Mymarommidae et les Mymaridae de la Belgique

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Memoires du Musee Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de

Belgique, 108: 1-248.

Debauche, H.R. 1949. Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Exploration du Pare

National Albert, mission G. F. de Witte, 49: 1-105.

Demaire, B. 1973. Perspectives nouvelles dans la lutte contre les principaux ennemis

entomologiques du cafeier arabica au Rwanda. Institut des Sciences

Agronomiques du Rwanda Note Technique, No 32: 43pp.

Enock, F. 1909. New genera of British Mymaridae (Haliday). Transactions of the

Entomological Society of London, 1909: 449-459.

Foerster, A. 1856. Hymenopterologische Studien. II. Heft. Chalcidiae und Proctotrupii.

Aachen. 152 pp.

<S!E'F'E<R^J{CES

Gahan, A.B. 1949. A new mymarid parasitic in the eggs oi Helopeltis cinchonae Mann.

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 51:75-76.

Gahan, A.B. & Fagan, M.M. 1923. The type species of the genera of Chalcidoidea or

cha\cid-f\\cs. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, Washington, 124: 1-

173.

Ghesquiere, J. 1942. Contribution a I'etude des Hymenopteres du Congo Beige. IX.

Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaine, 36: 317-328.

Gibson, G.A.P. 1986. Evidence for the monophyly and relationships of Chalcidoidea.

Mymaridae, and Mymarommatidae (Hymenoptera: Terebrantes). The Canadian

Entomologist, 118: 205-240.

Girault, A.A. 1911. A new mymarid genus and species from North America allied with

Anthemus Howard. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 13:

185-187.

Girault, A.A. 1912. Australian Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea. II. The family Mymaridae

with descriptions of new species. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 1:117-175.

Girault, A.A. 1913. A synonymic note on the Mymaridae. Proceedings of the

Entomological Society of Washington, 14: 221.

Girault, A.A. 1917. Descriptions hymenopterorum chalcidoidicarum variorum cum

observationibus, V. :16pp Private publication.

Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1982. The Haliday collection of Mymaridae (Insecta.

Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) with taxonomic notes on some material in other

collections. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, B82(12): 189-243.

Haliday, A.H. 1833. An essay on the classification of the parasitic Hymenoptera of

Britain, which correspond with the Ichneumones minuti of Linnaeus.

Entomological Magazine, 1: 333-350, 490-491.

<B^'F'E<RfE^CES

Hayat, M. 1992. Records of Mymaridae from India, with notes (Hymenoptera:

Chalcidoidea). Hexapoda, 4(1): 83-89.

Hayat, M & Anis, S.B. 1999a. The Indian species of Acmopolynema with notes on

Acanthomymar (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae). Oriental insects, 33:

297-313.

Hayat, M. & Anis, S.B. 1999b. The Indian species of Polynema with notes on

Stephanodes reduvioli (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Oriental insects, 33:315-331.

Hayat, M & Anis, S.B. 1999 c. New records of two genera Ptilomymar and

Himopolynema from India, with descriptions of two new species (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae). Shashpa, 6(1): 15-22.

Hayat, M. & Khan, F.R. 2009 (20 Aug 2009), First record of Eubroncus from India

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae) with description of a new species.

Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1(8): 439-440.

Hayat, M. Basha, M.C. & Singh, S. 2003. Descriptions of three new species of

Himopolynema from India (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae). Shashpa.

10(1): 1-6.

Hayat, M. & Anis, S.B. & Khan, F.R. 2008. Descriptions of two new species of

Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from India, with some records. Oriental

Insects, 42: 327-333.

Huber, J.T. 1986. Systematics, biology, and hosts of Mymaridae and Mymarommatidae

(Insecta: Hymenoptera). 1758-1984. Entomography, 4: 185-243.

Huber, J.T. 1987. Review of Schizophragma Ogloblin and the non- Australian species of

Stethynium Enock (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). The Canadian Entomologist, 119:

823-855.

'RfiT'E'R^T^'CES

Huber, J.T. 1988.The species of groups of Gonatocerus Nees in North America, witii

revision of the sulphuripes- and ater-groups (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae).

Memoirs of Entomological society of Canada, 141: 1 -109.

Huber, J.T. 1997. Chapter 14. Mymaridae. In: Gibson, G. A. P., Huber, J. T. & Woolley.

J. B. (eds.) Annotated keys to the genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera).

NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Pp. 499-530.

Huber, J.T. 2003. Review of Chaetomymar Oglobiin with description of a new species in

the Hawaiian Islands (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Journal of Hymenoptera

Research, 12:77-101.

Huber, J.T. & Fidalgo, P. 1997. Review of the genus Stephanodes (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 128: 27-63.

Huber, J.T. & Lin, N.Q. 1999. World review of the Camptoptera-group of genera

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of

Ontario, 130:21-65.

ICZN 1965. Opinion 729. Mymar Curtis, 1829 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). designation of a

type-species under the plenary powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 11:

82-83.

Kieffer, J.J. 1913. Description de cinq Hymenopteres nouveaux. Bulletin de la Sociele

d'Histoire Naturelle de Metz, 28: 1-4

Kryger, J.P. 1950. The European Mymaridae comprising the genera known up to c.1930.

Entomologiske Meddelelser, 16: 1-97.

Lin, N.Q. Huber, J.T. & La Salle, J. 2007. The Australian Genera of Mymaridae

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Zoo/oxfl, 1596: 1-111.

V^T'E'S^J^CES

Livingstone, D. & Yacoob, M. 1990. A new species of Paralklaptera (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae) an egg parasitoid of Tingidae from southern India. Journal of the

Bombay Natural History Society, 84: 631-634.

Malac, A. 1943. Pterolinononyktera nov. gen. obenbergeri nov. sp. Entomologicke Listy,

6:51.

Malenotti, E. 1917. Metalaptus torquatus n. gen. e n. specie di calcidite. Redia, 12: 339-

341.

Mani, M.S. 1942. Studies on Indian parasitic Hymenoptera II. Indian Journal of

Entomology A(2): 153-162.

Mani, M.S. 1989. Fauna of India. Chalcidoidea Part-II. Zoological survey of India. Govt.

of India, Mymaridae: pp. 1381-1466.

Mani, M.S. & Saraswat, G.G. 1973. Family Gonatoceridae. pp. 78-100. In Mani, M.S.

Dubey, O.P., Kaul, B.K. & Saraswat, G.G. On some Chalcidoidea from India.

Mem. School Ent. St. John's College Agra, No. 2: iii + 128 pp. [Title on page 1

reads: On some chalcids (Hymenoptera) from India].

Manickavasagam, S. & Rameshkumar, A. 2011. First report of three genera of fairytlies

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) from India with description of a new species of

Dicopus and some other records. Zootaxa, 3094: 63-68.

Manickavasagam, S., Rameshkumar, A. & Jebanesan, A. 2011. Diversity and new

distributional records of fairyflies (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae) from

the state of Kerala, India, Plant Archives, 11(2): 169-11 A.

Manickavasagam, S., Rameshkumar, A. & Rajmohana, K. 2011. First report of four

species of fairyflies from India, Key to Indian species of four genera and

additional distributional records of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).

Madras Agricultural Journal 98 (10-12): 393-408.

^T'E9!E^CES

Mathot, G. 1966. Contribution a la connaissance des Mymaridae et Mymarommidae

d'Afrique centrale (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea/ Bulletin & Annales de la Societe

Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique, 102: 214-239.

Mathot, G. 1969. Contribution a la connaissance des Mymaridae d'Europe et description

d'especes nouvelles (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bulletin de I'Institut Royale des

Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 45(7): 1-23.

Mercet, R.G. 1912. Mimaridos nuevos de Espana. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Espanola

de Hist or ia Natural, 12:331-337.

Narayanan, E. S. & Subba Rao, B. R. 1961. Studies on Indian Mymaridae HI

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Beitr. Ent., 11: 655-671.

Narayanan, E.S. Subba Rao, B.R. & Kaur, R.B. 1960. Studies on Indian Mymaridae II.

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Beitrage zur Entomologie, 10(7/8): 886-890.

Novicky, S. 1953. Vorlaufige Beschreibung einiger Mymariden (Hymenoptera,

Chalcidoidea), I. Teil. Entomologisches Nachrichtenblatt Osterreichischer und

Schweizer Entomologen, 5(1/2): 13-15.

Noyes, J.S. 1982. Collecting and preserving chalcid wasps (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).

J.Nat. Hist., 16:315-334.

Noyes, J. S. 2011. Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web electronic

Publication, vvvvw.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids/index.html (accessed 12th

January, 2013).

Noyes, J.S. & Valentine E.W. 1989. Mymaridae (Insecta: Hymenoptera) introduction.

and review of genera. Fauna of New Zealand, 17: 95 pp.

Ogloblin, A.A. 1934. Especies nuevas del genero Eurythmelus Enock de la Republica

Argentina (Mymaridae, Hym.). Revista de la Sociedad Entomologica Argentina.

6: 243-260, Plates XXII-XXIV.

http://vvvvw.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids/index.html

'R!E.T<EW.^CES

Ogloblin, A.A. 1935. Especies nuevas o poco conocidas del genero Gonatocerus (Hym;

Mymaridae). de la Republica Argentina. Revista de la Sociedad Entomologica

Argentina, 7: 65-78.

Ogloblin, A.A. 1967. Mimaridos nuevos de Argentina (Hymenopt. Mymaridae). Ada

Zoologica Lilloana, 22: 183-196.

Ogloblin, A.A. & Annecke, D.P. 1961. Some new Mymaridae from South Africa and

Argentina in the genus Camptoptera Foerster (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).

Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa, 24: 293-307.

Perkins, R.C.L. 1905. Leaf hoppers and their natural enemies. Part VI. Mymaridae.

Platygasteridae. Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, Experiment Station.

Entomology Series Bulletin, 1: 187-205.

Perkins, R.C.L. 1912. Parasites of insects attacking sugar cane. Hawaiian Sugar Planters '

Association, Experiment Station, Entomology Series Bulletin, 10: 1-27.

Rameshkumar, A., Manickavasagam, S. & Jebanesan, A. 2011. Diversity and new

distributional records of fairyflies (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae) from

the state of Kerala, India. Plant Archives, 11 (2): 769-774.

Rehmat, T. & Anis, S.B. 2011. First record of Pseudanaphes (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae)

from India, with description of a new species. Biosystematica, 5(1): 13-16.

Rehamat, T., Anis, S.B. & Hayat, M. 2009. Record of the genus Litus Haliday

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae) from India, with descriptions of two

species. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1(7): 370-374.

Schauff, M.E. 1984. The Holarctic genera of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).

Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington, 12: 1-67.

Soyka, W. 1932. Neue Trichogramminen und Mymarinenarten aus Sud-Limburg.

Natuurhistorisch Maandblad, Maastricht 21: 82-84.

<Kf.'F'E<R3LJ^CES

Soyka, W. 1961. Neue monographische Revision der Camptoptera-Gmppe mit den

Gattungen Camptoptera Forster, Stictothrix Forster, Macrocamptoptera Giraull

und Wertanekiella n. g. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Publicaties van het

Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg, 12: 72-89.

Subba Rao, B. R. 1966. Records of known and new species of mymarid parasites of

Empoasca devastans Distant from India. Indian Journal of Entomology, 28: 187-

196.

Subba Rao, B.R. 1970. Descriptions of new genera and species of Mymaridae

(Hymenoptera) from the Far East and the Ethiopian region. Bulletin of

Entomological Research, 59: 659-670.

Subba Rao, B. R. 1984. Description of new species of Oriental Mymaridae and

Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Proceedings of Indian Acadamy of

Sciences. Animal Science, 93: 251-262

Subba Rao, B.R. 1989. On a collection of Indian Mymaridae (Chalcidoidea:

Hymenoptera).//exopoc/a, 1: 139-186.

Subba Rao, B.R. & Hayat, M. 1983. Key to the genera of Oriental Mymaridae, with a

preliminary catalogue (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). pp. 125-150 in V. K. Gupta

(ed.). Studies on the Hymenoptera. Gainsville.

Subba Rao, B.R., Hayat, M. 1985. Family Mymaridae. (In: The Chalcidoidea (Insecta;

Hymenoptera) of India and the adjacent countries. Oriental Insects, 19: 235-238.

Subba Rao B. R. & Hayat, M. 1986. Family Mymaridae (pp. 179-195). In B. R. Subba

Rao & M. Hayat (eds.): The Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of India and the

adjacent countries. Part II. Oriental Insects, 20: 1-430.

Subba Rao, B.R. & Kaur, G.G. 1959. Studies on Indian Mymaridae Part-I. Proceedings of

Indian Academy of Sciences, (B), 49: 227-238.

<S^'F'E<R;EÔES

Taguchi, H. ] 977. A new genus belonging to the tribe Mymarini from Japan, Taiwan and

Malaysia (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Transactions of the Shikoku Entomological

Society, 13(3^): 137-142.

Triapitsyn, S.V. 2003. Review of the Mymaridae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) of

Primorskii Krai: genus Erythmelus Enock, with taxonomic notes on some

QX\xdX\rmid\ spQcxes. Far Eastern Entomologist, 126: 1^4.

Triapitsyn, S.V. 2010. Revision of Palaearctic species and review of the Oriental species

of Ooctonus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), with notes on extralimital taxa. Zootaxa,

1-74.

Triapitsyn, S.V. & Beardsley, J.W. 2000. A review of Hawaiian species of Anagrus

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Proceeding of Hawaiian Entomological Society, 34:

23-48.

Triapitsyn, S.V. & Berezovskiy, V.V. 2001. Review of the Mymaridae (Hymenoptera:

Chalcidoidea) of Primorskii Krai: Genus Mymar Curtis. Far Eastern

Entomologist, 100: 1-20.

Triapitsyn, S.V. & Berezovskiy, V.V. 2004. Review of the genus Litus Haliday, 1833 in

the Holarctic and Oriental regions, with notes on the Palaearctic species of

Arescon Walker, 1846 (Hymenoptera, Mymaridae). Far Eastern Entomologist.

141: 1-24.

Triapitsyn, S.V. & Berezovskiy, V.V. 2007. A review of the Oriental and Australian

species of Acmopolynema, with taxonomic notes on Palaeoneura and

Xenopolynema stat. rev. And description description of a new species

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Zoo/flxa, 1455: 1-68.

î^js-j

^'PE^R^y^CES

Triapitsyn, S.V. & Fidalgo, P. 2006. Definition of Doriclytus, stat. rev. as a subgenus of

Polynema and redescription of its type species, P. (Doriclytus) vitripenne

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Zootcaa, 1362: 55-68.

Triapitsyn, S.V. & Huber, J.T. 2000. Fam. Mymaridae. In: Lep, P.A. (ed.) Key to the

insects of Russian Far East Vol. IV. Neuropteroidea, Mecoptera, Hymenoptera.

Part 4. Dal'nauka, Vladivostok. Pp. 603-614 [In Russian].

Triapitsyn, S.V., Huber, J.T., Logarzo, G.A., Berezovskiy, V.V. & Aquino, A.D. 2010.

Review of Gonatocerus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in the Neotropical region,

with description of eleven new species. Zootaxa, 2456: 1-243.

Triapitsyn, S.V., Berezovskiy, V.V., Hoddle, M.S. & Morse, J.G. 2007. A review of the

Nearctic species of Erythmelus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), with a key and new

additions to the New World fauna. Zootaxa, 1641: 1-64.

Verma, M. 1980. Mymar schwanni, new record from India (Hymenoptera: Chaicidoidea:

Mymaridae). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 76(3): 535-536.

Viggiani, G. 1978. New species of Camptoptera Foerster (Hym. Mymaridae). Revue

Suisse de Zoologie, 85(1): 151-156.

Viggiani, G. & Jesu, R. 1985. Due nuove specie paleartiche de genere Erythmelus Enock

(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Redia, 68: 485^91.

Walker, F. 1846. Descriptions of the Mymaridae. The Annals and Magazine of Natural

History, 18:49-54.

Ward, A.O. 1875. Description of a new species of Proctotrypidae from Ceylon.

Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 11: 197.

Westwood, J.O. 1839. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. In: An introduction to the

modem classification of insects, founded on the natural habits and corresponding

organisation of the different families. Pp. 1-58.

<m'PE<il!E'NOES

Yoshimoto, CM. 1990. A review of the genera of New World Mymaridae (Hymenoptera:

ChalcidoideaJ. Flora & Fauna Handbook No. 7. Sandhill Crane Press.

Gainesville, FL. 166 pp.

Zeya, S.B. & Anwar P.T. 2013. Description of four new species of Gonatocerus Nees

(Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae) from India. Oriental Insects, (in pers).

Zeya, S.B. & Hayat, M. 1995. A revision of the Indian species of Gonatocerus Nees

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae). Oriental insects, 29: 47-160.

Zeya, S.B. & Khan, F. R. 2012. The genus Gonatocerus Nees (Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae)

from India with description of two new species. Oriental insects, 46: 53-62.

7<

11. APPENDIX-I

J4<J^PE^'DJX-J

APPENDIX!

1. Acmopolynema Og\ob\'m. \946

2. Alaptus Westwood, 1839

3. Anagroidea Girau\i,\9\5

4. /l«agrM5 Haliday, 1833

5. AnaphesV{a\\day,]S33

6. Arescon Walker, 1846

7. Australomymar Givaull, \929

8. Camptoptera FoQTster, \S56

9. D/co/?oworp/7a Ogloblin, 1955

10. Dico/?w5 Enock, 1909

11. Eofoersteria Mathot, 1966

12. Eryihmelus Enock, \9()9

13. Eubroncus Yoshimoto, Kozlov & Trjapitzin, 1972

14. Gono/ocerw5 Nees, 1834

75. Himopolynema Taguchi, 1971

16. I/Yw^Haliday, 1833

17. Mymar Curtis, 1829

18. Narayanella Subba Rao, 1976

19. Ooc/ortW5 Haliday, 1833

20. Palaeoneura Waterhouse, 1915

21. Po/ywewa Haliday, 1833

22. Pseudanaphes Noyes & Valentine, 1989

23. Ptilomymar Annecke & Doutt, 1961

24. Schizophragma Ogloblin, 1949

25. Stephanodes Enock, \909

26. S'/e^w'ww Enock, 1909

80

12. PUBLICATION

52 BIONOTES Vol. 14 (2), June 2012

Record of Some Species of Mymaridae from Different States of India (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)

p. TARIQUE ANWAR and SHAHID BIN ZEYA

Department of Zoology, AUgarh Muslim University, Aligarh — 202 002 (U.P.).

E-mail: [email protected]

The mymarids, commonly called 'fairyflies' are oophagus insects, parasitizing eggs, mainly of Hemiptera (Auchcnorrhyncha), but also attack eggs of Coleoptera, Psocoptera, Diptera and Orthoptera (Ruber, 1986). The mymarid fauna of India is currently represented by 113 species in 26 genera (Noyes, 2012).

This paper deals with 14 mymarid species in 5 genera, collected during 2011-2012. Unless noted otherwise, the specimens v/ae mounted on rectangular cards. All the specimens have been deposited in the 'Insect Collection, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh' (ZDAMU). 1. Camptoptera matcheta Subba Rao

Specimens examined: Uttarakhand: Dehradun, Sahaspur, 1 female (on slide), ll.xi.2011; Dehradun, Harbatpur. 1 female (on slide), 14.xi.2011 (P.T.Anwar).

Distribution: Kamataka, Uttarakhand (new record). 2. Erythmelus (Erythmelus)Jlavovarius (Walker)

Specimens examined: Uttarakhand: Tehri Garhwal, Byasi, 1 female (on slide), 17.xi.2011 (RT. Anwar). Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh, 1 female (on slide), 25.xii.2011, (P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman).

Distribution: Delhi, Puducherry, Uttar Pradesh (new record), Uttarakhand (new record). 3. Erythmelus (Erythmelus) lygivorus Viggiani & Jesu

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Aligarh, Panjipur, I female (on slide), 23.ix 2011 (RT. Anwar & S.U. Usman).

Distribution; Kerala, Uttar Fradcsii (new record). 4. Gonatocerus aler Foerstcr

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Aligarh, Panjipur, 1 female 23.ix.2011 (RT. Anwar & S.U. Usman); Rampur, Kakrawwa, 1 female (on slide), 02.ix.2011 (S.U. Usman). Uttarakhand: Dehradun, Kalsi, 1 female, 15.xi.2011 (P.T. Anwar).

Distribution: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Kerala, Punjab. Odisha, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal. 5. Gonatocerus bicoloriventris Zeya

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Qayamganj, Baryala, I female (on slidcj, 7.ix.2007 (F.R. Khan). West Bengal: Darjeeling,Sirobari, 1 female, 15.vi.2008(F.R.Khan).

Kstribution: Bihar, Kamataka, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal (new record). 6. Gonatocerus longicornis Nees

Specimens examined: Jharidiand: Hazaribag, Hesla, 1 female, 06.ix.2011 (P.T. Anwar). Uttar Pradesh: Bulandshahar, Narora, 1 female, 02.X.2011 (RT. Anwar & S.U. Usman); Etah, PatnaPanchi Vihar, 2 females, 27.xi.2011 (S.B. Zeya, P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman). Uttarakhand: Dehradun, Vikash Nagar, 1 female, 14.xi.2011 (P.T.Anwar).

Distribution: Assam, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand (new record), Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal. 7. Gonatocerus munnarus Mani & Saraswat

Specimens examined: Jharkhand: Hazaribag, Huagh, 4 females. 07.ix.2011 (RT. Anwar). Uttar Pradesh: Rampur, Kakrawwa, 3 females, 02.ix.2011; 1 female (on slide), 02.ix.2011 (S.U. Usman). Aligarh, Panjipur, 12 females, 23.ix.2011 (P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman); Bulandshahar, Narora, 7 females, 02.X.2011 (P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman).

Distribution: Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand (new record), Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, 8. Gonatocerus sahadevani (Subba Rao & Kaur)

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Aligarh, 1 female, 13.viii.2011 (P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman). Uttarakhand: Dehradun, Shankarpur, 1 female, 1 l.xi.2011 (P.T. Anwar).

Distribution: Bihar, Delhi, Kerala, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand (new record), West Bengal. 9. Gonatocerus shamimi Subba Rao & Hayat

Specimens examined: Jharkhand: Hazaribag, Hesla, 1 female, 06.ix.2011 (P.T. Anwar). Uttar Pradesh: Aligarh, 2 females, 13.viii.2011; 1 female, 20.ix.2011; 1 female, 22.ix.2011 (RT Anwar & S.U. Usman).

Distribution: Bihar, Jharkhand (new record), Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, id. Gonatocerus tarae (Narayanan & Subba Rao)

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Rampur, Kakrawwa, 2 females, 02.ix.2011 (S. U. Usman); Aligarh. 7 females, 20.ix.2011; 3 females, 22.ix.2011 (P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman); Bulandshahar, Narora, 3 females, 02.X.2011

mailto:[email protected]

http://25.xii.201

http://23.ix.201

http://27.xi.201

http://23.ix.2011

http://22.ix.201

http://22.ix.201

VoL 14 (2), June 2012 BIONOTES 53

(P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman). Uttarakhand: Dehradun, Shankarpur, 1 female, n.xi.2011 (P.T.Anwar).

Distribution: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karaataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Odisha, Puduchetry, Punjab, Tknil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal. 11. Gonatocerus trialbifuniatUaus Subba Rao

Specimens examined: Uttarakhand: Dehradun, Shankarpur, 1 female, U.xi.2011 (P.T.Anwar).

Distribution: Kamataka, Uttarakhand (new record). West Bengal. 12. Mymar taprobankum Ward

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Aligarh, 1 female, 23.xi.2011; 1 female (on slide), 23.xi.2011; Aligaih, Panjipur, 1 female, 23.ix.2011; 1 female, 28.X.2011; 1 female (on slide), 28.X.2011 (P.T. Anwar & S.U. Usman). Uttarakhand: Dehradun, Sahaspur, 1 female, ll,xi.2011; 1 female (on slide), 11 .xi.2011 (P.T. Anwar).

Distribution: Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Puducheny, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand. 13. Mymar schwanni Girault

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Saharanpur, Gagalhedi, 1 female, 16.xi.2011 (P.T. Anwar). Varanasi, Napura Kalan, 1 female, 21 .iii.2012 (P.T. Anwar).

Distribution: Andhra Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala,

Odisha, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh. 14. Polynema mendeU Girault

Specimens examined: Odisha: Puri.MatiaPada, 1 female (on slide), 29.xi.2007 (F.R. Khan).

Distribution: Assam, Bihar, Kerala, Puducherry, Odisha (new record). West Bengal.

Acknowledgments: Authors thank Dr. Mohammad Hayat, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for critically reviewing the paper. They are grateful to Prof. Irfan Ahmad, Chairman, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for providing research facilities. Thanks are due to the Indian Council of Agricui-njral Research, New Delhi and Dr. V. V. Ramamurthy (Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi), the National Co-ordinator of Network Project on Insect Biosystematics for financial assistance. The University Grant Commission, New Delhi is also acknowledged for providing financial assistance. References Huber, J. T., 1986. Systematics, biology, and hosts of the

Mymaridae and Mymarommatidae (Insecta: Hy-mraioptera): 1758-1984. En»omo«rap/iy. 4:185-243.

Noyes, J. S. 2012. Universal Chalcidoidea Database. Available at: http7/www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids/ index.html (accessed on 1" February 2012).

I S

Superstition T\inneric crop affected by menstruating women in Andhra

The scent of turmeric wafts across the emerald green fields of Pipri village in Andhra Pradesh's Nizamabad district as woman labourers, humming softly, kneel on the damp ground and pluck out weeds with a skill only experience can bring. Barely has one soaked in this picture-perfect scene when one of the women, Saiamma, rushes out of the fields, yelling out, "I'll be back in five days." "My calculations went wrong." she explains breathlessly. 'It's that time of the month and I'm not supposed to work in the fields. If the seth (contractor) finds out, he'll be angry."

And off goes Saiamma, convinced that she might have contaminated seven acres of "sacred" turmeric crop with hw "carelessness". In Nizamabad district, where high-quality turmeric is grown across 14,(X)0 hectares, it's a tradition followed blindly by farmers and labourers alike: a menstruating woman is not allowed to step into the fields lest she violate the sanctity of the crop.

Commanding a price of Rs 13,000-18,000 a quintal.

turmeric is gold here; and Nizamabad has produced bumper crops for the last two years. Not just that, turmeric—used in pujas, temples, food, medicines, festivals and marriages— is also invested with notions of "purity". No wonder then that there is hardly a voice in turmeric country willing to speak out against this medieval practice.

Defending it, fanner G. Gangareddy says, "The women practise this self-imposed restriction because they don't want to harm the crop." Kalavathi, a labourer on his farm, does believe that if a woman toudies turmeric plants during "those days", the crop may be infested with pests, decay or lose its quality. Has she seen it herself? Kalavathi shakes her head, saying the women are too disciplined to woik during then- period.

Evoi Kotapati Narasimham Naidu of the Swadeshi Jaganan Manch, figîting for a minimum support price for turemeric, sees the ban as a sacred issue, not to be meddled with. "While it may just be a sentiment, it is part of our culture as well," he says.

—Madhavi Tlata

http://23.xi.201

http://23.xi.201

http://23.ix.2011

http://29.xi.2007

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids/

Date post:	11-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

0iasut of $|)tlos(opfipZeya & Hayat (1995) revised the Indian species of Gonatocerus Nees and...

Documents