TAXONOMIC NOTES ON THE INDIAN ... Insects, Vol. 42: 1–32, 2008. TAXONOMIC NOTES ON THE INDIAN TRICHOGRAMMATIDAE (HYMENOPTERA : CHALCIDOIDEA), WITH REDESCRIPTIONS AND RECORDS OF SOME

Oriental Insects, Vol. 42: 1–32, 2008.

TAXONOMIC NOTES ON THE INDIAN TRICHOGRAMMATIDAE

(HYMENOPTERA : CHALCIDOIDEA), WITH REDESCRIPTIONS

AND RECORDS OF SOME SPECIES

MOHAMMAD HAYAT

Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202 002, India

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT. Notes are provided on the identities of the Indian Trichogrammatidae. Holotypes, para-

types and determined material were examined. Thirteen species are synonymized as follows (senior syno-

nyms in parenthesis). Brachygrammatella indica Khan, Brachygrammatella longiclavata Khan (Brachy-

grammatella indica Viggiani & Hayat); Brachygrammatella singularis Yousuf & Shafee (Chaetogramma

maculata Hayat); Chaetostricha terebrator Yousuf & Shafee; Oligositoides latipennis Yousuf & Shafee

(Chaetostricha terebrata (Yousuf & Shafee), comb. nov. from Oligositoides); Mirufens albiscutellum Khan

& Shafee, Mirufens magniclavata Khan & Shafee (Mirufens afrangiata Viggiani & Hayat); Mirufens longi-

clavata Khan & Shafee (Mirufens mangiferae Viggiani & Hayat); Paruscanoidea indica Mani (Pseudo-

brachysticha semiaurea Girault) Paruscanoidea longiclavata Yousuf & Shafee (Prosoligosita perplexa

Hayat & Husain); Ufens angustipennis Yousuf & Shafee (Ufens jaipurensis Yousuf & Shafee); Ufens alami

Yousuf & Shafee, Ufens singularis Yousuf & Shafee (Ufens latipennis Yousuf & Shafee). The new combi-

nations proposed are the following: Chaetostricha fumipennis from Oligositoides; Chaetostricha terebrata

from Oligositoides; Paracentrobia nephotetticum from Westwoodella; Uscana latipennis from Neo-

lathromera. The following species are considered incertae sedis: Brachygrammatella jaipurensis Yousuf &

Shafee, Haeckeliania magniclavata Yousuf & Shafee; Tumidiclava magnicorpa Yousuf & Shafee. Com-

ments are also given on the species, and Oligosita nephotetticum Mani, Paracentrobia nephotetticum

(Mani) and Parhispidophila singularis Yousuf & Shafee, are redescribed. Also some species are recorded.

Key words: Indian Trichogrammatidae, taxonomic notes, new synonyms.

Introduction

The family Trichogrammatidae, in spite of many contributions made during the last

quarter of the last century, remains very poorly known from India, being represented by

26 genera and a little over a hundred species. During 2005-2006, a large number of

trichogrammatids (apart from other chalcidoids) was collected from Himachal Pradesh,

Pathankot (Punjab) and Uttar Pradesh. The identification of the Indian species of this

family has proved to be difficult in spite of the publications by Yousuf & Shafee (several

papers culminating in their review of 1988). It is, therefore, considered essential first to

know the status of the described species before identification be done of the recently col-

lected material.

The insect collections of the Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University

(ZDAMU) have all the holotypes (except of Uscana alami) of the species described by

Yousuf & Shafee, Khan, Khan & Shafee and paratypes and determined material of spe-

cies described by Hayat and others. This made it possible to examine the types and com-

pare with the recently collected specimens.

This paper deals with the taxonomic identities of 35 Indian species reviewed/ de-

scribed in Yousuf & Shafee’s (1988) paper, 4 species described after 1988 by these au-

thors, and 3 species described by Mani (1939). The species of Trichogramma, Tricho-

grammatoidea and Oligosita are not considered, except for one species described by

Mani (1939) in the later genus. The genus Paracentrobia, except for one species, is also

2 Oriental Insects Vol. 42

not considered in this paper. This genus is being revised for the world species by Mr. Jer-

emy George, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside (USA), and

the holotypes of the species described by Yousuf & Shafee and additional undetermined

material of this genus from the ZDAMU are on loan to him.

The study of the types of the species described by Yousuf & Shafee has revealed

some inconsistency in the treatment of some species (for instance, one species was de-

scribed thrice in two different genera); omission of some apparently important characters;

generally erroneous figures of the antennae drawn from uncleared or otherwise distorted

antennae; and leaving the uncleared body (sometimes head distorted, broken or frag-

mented) in a drop of balsam without putting on coverslip. The drop of balsam contains, in

addition to the holotype, trapped psocids and small acarines. This necessitated redrawing

the antenna and part of fore wing in a majority of the species.

I do not want to comment on the generic limits of the currently recognized genera

and the suprageneric classification of the Trichogrammatidae. Suffice it to say that both

are in a confused state. A species is sometimes placed in a genus solely on the basis of the

structure of the male genitalia even if the females are structurally similar. There is a clas-

sification based on the females and one based on the male genitalia; and there appears to

be not much congruence between these two systems (see Pinto, 1997).

The following abbreviations are used in the text for the depositories:

BMNH – The Natural History Museum, London, England.

NPCI – National Pusa Collection, Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Re-

search Institute, New Delhi, India.

USNM – U.S. National Museum, Washington DC, U.S.A.

ZDAMU – Insect Collections, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University,

Aligarh, India.

ZSI – Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India.

Taxonomic notes

Aphelinoidea gwaliorensis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 14, 15)

Aphelinoidea gwaliorensis Yousuf & Shafee 1985c: 303–304, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Gwalior

(ZDAMU), examined.

Type specimen examined: The original description of this species was based upon a

single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one with one antenna and one

fore wing under a large coverslip, rest of the specimen on the second slide in a drop of

balsam. The slides are labelled: ‘87E Aphelinoidea gwaliorensis sp. n. M. Yousuf

5.xi.1983’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

There are also 9 slides written ‘Paratype’ (5 slides) and ‘Allotype’ (4 slides), but

these have no type status as the species was described from a single female, the holotype.

Comments: This species appears distinct, characterized by a gaster which is longer

than the combined lengths of the head and the thorax; the ovipositor originates from base

and is shortly but distinctly exserted at apex; and the prominent hypopygium which ex-

tends nearly to the apex of the gaster. The gaster in A. longiclavata is not longer than the

head and thorax combined and the ovipositor is short and not exserted. The antennal

clava, compared to that of A. longiclavata, is shorter and robust, although not as robust as

2008 Hayat: On Indian Trichogrammatidae 3

illustrated in figure 14 which was drawn from a clava pressed due to pressure of the cov-

erslip. The first segment of the clava is partially divided by an incomplete suture.

Aphelinoidea longiclavata Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 16, 17)

Aphelinoidea longiclavata Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 105, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined.

Type specimens examined: The original description of this species was based upon 5

females, the holotype and four paratypes. The holotype is on two slides; one with one an-

tenna and one fore wing (mounted ventral side up) on a slide under a large coverslip; rest

of body (head detached, broken, antenna beyond pedicel detached) on the second slide in

a drop of balsam. The slides are labelled: ‘M.Y. 391 Aphelinoidea longiclavata ♀

M.Yousuf Aligarh 7.5.1985’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

There is a single slide with 3 females in a drop of balsam. The slide labelled

‘M.Y.392 Aphelinoidea longiclavata ♀♀ =391 M. Yousuf Aligarh 7.5.1983’ and a ticket

with ‘Paratype’ written in green ink. The year of collection (1983) might be an error on

the part of the authors as the original description says that the paratype has the same data

as the holotype.

Comments: See under A. gwaliorensis.

Brachygrammatella indica Viggiani & Hayat

Brachygrammatella (Pseudbrachygramma) indica Viggiani & Hayat, 1974: 150–151, ♀ ♂. Holotype:

♀, India: Manmad (ZSI). Paratypes in ZDAMU examined. Also from Aligarh, Jullendar and Tu-

ticorin.

Brachygrammatella indica Khan, 1975a: 431–432, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined. Preoccupied by B. indica Viggiani & Hayat, 1974. SYN. NOV.

Brachygrammatella aligarhensis Khan, 1976: 392. Replacement name for indica Khan. SYN. NOV.

Brachygrammatella longiclavata Khan, 1975b: 635, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined. SYN. NOV.

Type specimens examined: B. indica: The original description of this species was

based upon 3 females and 1 male, holotype female and paratypes. The holotype was in

alcohol in a vial. A ticket with correct data was in the vial. The ticket is labelled: ‘No. K-

1b Holotype, ♀ Genus: Brachygrammatella Sp.: aligarhensis sp.n.’ and ‘Host: Oxyrachis

tarandus Fabr. India, U.P., Aligarh 18.ix.1974 (M.Y. Khan)’.

The color of the specimen has faded due to long preservation in alcohol, and was

mounted on slide in balsam (by me in 1995) with the original ticket glued on to the slide.

There are also 6 slides with 2 ♀ and 1 ♂. These slides bear the reference No. K-1b., and

labelled Brachygrammatella aligarhensis. These are obviously paratypes although not

labelled as such. Two of the slides also have ‘Nom. N.’ after aligarhensis.

It is, therefore, obvious that Khan (1975a) either labelled this species as aligarhensis

but published the species as indica (!) or the labelling was done after publication of the

replacement name.

B. longiclavata: The holotype was in alcohol in a vial. A ticket bearing correct data

was in the vial. It is labelled ‘ No. K-2 Holotype ♀ Genus: Brachygrammatella Sp.:

longiclavata sp.n.’ and ‘Host: Oxyrachis tarandus Fabr. India, U.P., Aligarh 18.xi. 1974.’

The specimen has deteriorated in alcohol, and was mounted on a slide in balsam (by

me in 1995), with the original ticket glued on to the slide.


There are also 5 slides with 2 ♀ and 1♂, bearing the same reference number and

name, but without paratype designation.

Comments: Both B. aligarhensis Khan and B. longiclavata Khan are indistinguish-

able from B. indica Viggiani & Hayat. All these so called species were reared from eggs

of Oxyranchis tarandus.

The key characters and the figures of fore wings given by Khan (1975a, b) and by

Yousuf & Shafee (1988: Figs. 21 C, F) are totally incorrect. In the holotypes and para-

types of both the species the marginal fringe is absent along anterior and apical margins

by the fore wing, with very short (likely to be overlooked) fringe along posterior margin.

Hence, I have placed these two species in synonymy with B. indica Viggiani & Hayat.

Brachygrammatella jaipurensis Yousuf & Shafee. Species incertae sedis

Brachygrammatella jaipurensis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 121–122, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Jaipur

(ZDAMU), examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides, both labelled: ‘452 Brachy-

grammatella jaipurensis sp.n. M. Yousuf, Jaipur, 15.xi.1985.’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’

written in red ink.

As usual one slide has one antenna and one fore wing under a large coverslip; the

body (head detached and partly crushed) in a drop of balsam on the second slide.

Non-type specimen examined: One female on a slide with the following data:

‘M.Y.R.A. 612 Brachygrammatella jaipurensis Yousuf & Shafee, Muzaffar Nagar,

29.ix.1990 M. Yousuf’. The slide has one antenna and one fore wing under a large cover-

slip, and rest of body (head partly damaged, antenna and wing missing) in a drop of bal-

sam on the same slide.

Comments: The antenna (uncleared) is flattened and distorted, with F1 partly over-

lapping F2, thus leading Yousuf & Shafee (1988) to believe that the funicle is partly di-

vided. I cannot locate the other antenna on the second slide. Otherwise, the elongated

gaster with its long ovipositor, and the sparsely setose marginal vein make the species

distinct from indica.

The additional specimen from Muzaffar Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) appears to have been

correctly determined as jaipurensis by M. Yousuf. In the holotype and the Muzaffar Na-

gar specimen the antenna appears to lack a funicle, and the clava appears to be 3-

segmented. I am, therefore, not sure whether this species belongs in Brachygrammatella

or in some other genus (near Aphelinoidea!).

Chaetogramma hisarensis Yousuf & Shafee

Chaetogramma hisarensis Yousuf & Shafee, 1993b: 49–50, ♀. India, Hisar (ZDAMU), presumed

Holotype examined.


single female, the holotype. The presumed holotype is on a slide in a drop of balsam,

with one antenna and a fragment of fore wing under a larger coverslip on the same slide.

The head is partly damaged and I can not locate the second antenna. The slide is labelled:

‘M.Y.R.A 707 Chaetogramma hisarensis sp.n. Near Mini Secretariate Hisar M. Yousuf

26.iii.1991’ There is no holotype designation, but as the name and the data agree with the


published data, I have considered it as the holotype and labelled it as ‘Holotype det. M.

Hayat 2007’ in my handwriting.

Comments: This species appears to be distinct by the characters given by Yousuf &

Shafee (1993b), mainly antenna with F2 longer than F1.

Chaetogramma (Chaetogrammina) maculata Hayat (Figs. 12, 13)

Chaetogramma (Chaetogrammina) maculata Hayat, 1981: 74–75, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh

(BMNH). Paratypes in ZDAMU examined.

Brachygrammatella singularis Yousuf & Shafee, 1985c: 305, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh

(ZDAMU), examined. SYN. NOV.

Chaetogramma singularis (Yousuf & Shafee): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 123, 125.

Type specimen examined: B. singularis: The original description of this species was

based upon a single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides, both labelled

‘342 Chaetogramma singularis sp.n. M. Akbar, Aligarh, 26.III.1985” and a ticket with

‘Holotype’ written in red ink. One slide has one antenna and one fore wing under a large

coverslip; the second slide has rest of the body (head damaged) in a drop of balsam. To

see the antenna clearly I have remounted the antenna on the same slide under a small

piece of coverslip. It is obvious that the labelling was done after the transfer of this spe-

cies to Chaetogramma.

There are also two slides with parts of 2 females and both are labelled ‘Paratype’.

But as the species was described from a single female, these ‘paratypes’ have no taxo-

nomic status, although they may have been correctly determined.

Comments: The figure of antenna given by Yousuf & Shafee (1985c) and repeated in

Yousuf & Shafee (1988: Fig. 21. I) was drawn from an antenna (of the holotype) pressed

due to pressure of the coverslip. The other antenna found along with the rest of the body

on the second slide (remounted by me) is illustrated in Figure 12. The slight differences

that are noticed fall within the range of variation of this species as I am able to confirm

from study of the paratype of maculata and 2 females collected in Aligarh in 1981. I

have, therefore, no hesitation in placing singularis in synonymy with maculata.

Chaetostricha fumipennis (Yousuf & Shafee), comb. nov. (Figs. 38, 39)

Oligositoides fumipennis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 139, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined.


females and 2 males, the holotype female and paratypes. The holotype is on two slides;

one slide with one antenna and one fore wing under a large coverslip, the second slide

with rest of body (head detached) in a drop of balsam. Both the slides are labelled: ‘390

Oligositoides fumipennis sp.n. M. Yousuf Aligarh 4.v.1985’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’

written in red ink.

There are 6 slides each labelled ‘Paratype’ in green ink with data as for the holotype,

but bearing different numbers (412, 560, 394, 530, 531), containing 2 ♀ and 3 ♂ (not 5

♀, 2 ♂ as given in the original description). Because of the way these specimens were

mounted, it is likely to confuse the sex of the specimen!

Comments: This species appears to be very close to C. magniclavata, differing, as far

as can be judged from the uncleared specimens, in the slightly more robust antennal funi-

cle and clava. Otherwise study of fresh and properly mounted specimens may eventually

prove these species to be synonymous.


Chaetostricha magniclavata Yousuf & Shafee (Fig. 40)

Chaetostricha magniclavata Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 119, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh

(ZDAMU), examined.


females and 1 male, the holotype female, and paratypes. The holotype is on two slides;

one slide with one antenna and a fore wing under a large coverslip, and the second slide

with rest of the body (minus one antenna) in a drop of balsam. The slides are labelled:

“397A Chaetostricha magniclavata sp.n. M. Yousuf Aligarh 25.v.1985” and a ticket with

‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

There are also 4 slides, each labelled ‘Paratype’ bearing numbers 401 (one slide),

409 (two slides) and 410 (one slide) containing 3 ♀ and 1♂, all collected in Aligarh on

‘7.7.1985’ (401), ‘28.7.1985’ (409) and ‘29.7.1985’ (410).

But as the original publication says that the paratypes (4 ♀, 1 ♂) have the ‘same

data as for holotype’, I think that the authors overlooked the collection dates of these

specimens.

Comments: See under C. fumipennis.

Chaetostricha terebrata (Yousuf & Shafee), comb. nov. (Figs. 32-37)

Oligositoides terebratus Yousuf & Shafee, 1984c: 369, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Gudur (ZDAMU),

examined.

Chaetostricha terebrator Yousuf & Shafee 1985b. 301–302, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Meerut


Oligositoides latipennis Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 139, 141, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Pondicherry


Type specimens examined: Oligositoides terebratus: The original description of this

species was based upon a single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one

slide with one fore wing under a large coverslip, rest of body on a second slide under a

drop of balsam (I have now put a small coverslip on this specimen). Both the slides are

labelled ‘130 Oligositoides terebratus sp.n., M. Yousuf 30.i.1984’ and a ticket with ‘Holo-

type’ written in red ink.

Chaetostricha terebrator: The original description of this species was based upon a

single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one slide with one antenna

and one fore wing under a large coverslip; rest of body on the second slide in a drop of

balsam. The slides are labelled ‘102T Chaetostricha terebrator ♀ Meerut M. Yousuf


There are also 6 slides, two labelled paratype (1 female) four labelled Allotype (3

males, 1 female), but these have no standing as the species was described from a single

female, the holotype.

Oligositoides latipennis: The original description of this species was based upon a


fore wing under a large coverslip, the second slide with rest of body in a drop of balsam.

Both slides are labelled: ‘168 Oligositoides latipennis sp.n. M. Yousuf Pondicherry

20.ii.1984’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Comments: The description of a single species thrice and in two separate genera by

Yousuf & Shafee, is unexplainable. They have, as indicated elsewhere, used uncleared

specimens, and in an uncleared antenna it is difficult to see the first funicle segment as it


is ring-like and adpressed with the base of the second segment (see figures 32, 34, and 36

drawn from the holotypes of the three species). The relative dimensions of F1 and F2

combined varies in the species. Also the ovipositor is strongly exserted in all the three

species (Figs. 33, 35, 37). I have, therefore, no hesitation in considering these three spe-

cies as synonymous.

Haeckeliania magniclavata Yousuf & Shafee. Species incertae sedis

Haeckeliania magniclavata Yousuf & Shafee, 1984b: 36, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Uttar Pradesh,

Chandausi (ZDAMU), examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one slide with one antenna and

both fore wings under a large coverslip; rest of body (head detached, broken into pieces

and the antenna missing), in a drop of balsam on the second slide. Both slides labelled:

‘116T Haeckeliania magniclavata sp. n. M. Yousuf Chandausi 25.xi.1983’ and a ticket

with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Comments: This species can not be Haeckeliania as the clava has only long setae,

not ‘forward-curving’ spines (actually the extensions of the longitudinal sensilla). As the

antenna on slide is uncleared and not properly mounted and the second antenna is miss-

ing, I can not give a firm opinion on this species.

Genus Lathromeroidea Girault

The genus is characterized by a 5-segmented elongate-oval antennal clava, without a

terminal rod-like projection, and the convergence of the setal lines (vein tracts) at the

base. The genus contains 7 species (3 Australian, 1 Palearctic, 1 Nearctic and 3 Oriental),

of which two species, L. angustipennis and L. ajmerensis were described from India by

Yousuf & Shafee (1984c;1988) and L. nigrella Girault was recorded by them from India.

I have found several specimens in ZDAMU collection determined as nigrella by

Yousuf & Shafee (1988), but am not sure whether these specimens were correctly identi-

fied. One of the species, L. angustipennis Yousuf & Shafee (1988) appears to be con-

specific with nigrella specimens determined by these authors. The second species, L.

ajmerensis has the ovipositor relatively longer, more than 2x as long as mid tibia, and un-

doubtedly represents a species different from angustipennis and nigrella sensu Yousuf &

Shafee. I have with me several specimens (both males and females) of possibly two spe-

cies belonging to ajmerensis and angustipennis/ nigrella. But I have not seen the types of

nigra Girault (1912), nigrella Girault (1912) and domestica Girault (1920) and, therefore,

can not provide a definite opinion on the three species recorded from India.

Lathromeroidea ajmerensis Yousuf & Shafee

Lathromeroidea ajmerensis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 160, 162, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Ajmer

ZDAMU), examined.



fore wing under a large coverslip; the body on the second slide under a drop of balsam.

Both the slides are labelled: ‘476 Lathromeroidea ajmerensis sp.n. M. Yousuf Ajmer


For comments see above under the genus.


Lathromeroidea angustipennis (Yousuf & Shafee) (Figs. 49, 50)

Zaga angustipennis Yousuf & Shafee, 1984c: 367, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU), exam-

ined.

Lathromeroidea angustipennis (Yousuf & Shafee): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 160, 162.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on a slide; the fore wings separated and the

body laterally mounted, both under a single large coverslip. The slide is labelled: ‘94 T

Lathromeroidea angustipennis from Zaga angustipennis M. Yousuf Aligarh 10.x.1983’

and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink. The species name was written after it was

transferred to Lathromeroidea from Zaga (!).

Comments: The specimen was obviously in alcohol for several months before it was

mounted on slide, hence the body color has faded to yellowish brown, and the wings have

become translucent and lost the basal infuscation. The original description and figures

(Yousuf & Shafee, 1984c: Fig. A and B, reproduced as Fig. 32 J and K by Yousuf &

Shafee, 1988) and the key characters given by Yousuf & Shafee (1988) are incorrect. The

fore wing with basal vein track (of 3 setae) present and the marginal fringe slightly longer

than one-third (not about one-fourth) of wing width (18: 6.5), and clearly not much dif-

ferent from the specimen identified as nigrella Girault by Yousuf & Shafee (1988). The

ovipositor is longer than mid tibia (26:14), about 1.85x as long as mid tibia. The antennal

clava is illustrated in figure 50 to show that the original figure given by Yousuf & Shafee

(1984c) is erroneous. That of nigrella sensu Yousuf & Shafee is also illustrated in figure

52 to show that the clava is 5-segmented, and not 6-segmented as noted in the key to spe-

cies given by Yousuf & Shafee (1988).

Genus Mirufens Girault

The transfer of the Indian species described in Mirufens to Ufens Girault by Yousuf

& Shafee (1988) is unexplainable. The types of these species of Mirufens are character-

ized by the presence of short spine-like projections on the outer margins of the fore tibiae;

the maxillary palps are 2-segmented and the pedicels have transverse microcrenulate

ridges. Hence these species are re-transferred to their original combinations. For com-

ments on the 6 species described in Ufens by Yousuf & Shafee (1988), refer to that genus

in the present paper.

Key to Indian species of Mirufens, females

1. Gaster elongate–conical, longer than head and thorax combined; ovipositor long,

arising from base of gaster, and at least 2x (usually slightly more) as long as

hind tibia; fore wing with marginal fringe present ................................................2 _- Gaster not elongate, about as long as head and thorax combined; ovipositor shorter,

about 1.5x as long as hind tibia; fore wing with marginal fringe absent...............3

2. F1 elongate cylindrical, about 1.5x as long as broad; F2 subquadratic; marginal vein

as long as stigmal vein………………………..longifuniculata Viggiani & Hayat _ F1 and F2 broader than long, F1 may be quadratic, but always at least slightly longer

than F2; marginal vein shorter than stigmal vein ....mangiferae Viggiani & Hayat

3. F1 somewhat shorter than F2; F2 provided with long setae as on claval segments;

femora and tibiae yellow .......................................... afrangiata Viggiani & Hayat _ F1 and F2 subequal in length; F2 with short setae; femora and largely hind tibiae

brown to dark brown .............................................brevifuniculata Khan & Shafee


Mirufens afrangiata Viggiani & Hayat

Mirufens (Trachocera) afrangiata Viggiani & Hayat, 1974: 145–147, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Ali-

garh (ZSI). Determined material in ZDAMU examined.

Mirufens albiscutellum Khan & Shafee, 1977: 32, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU), exam-

ined. SYN. NOV.

Mirufens magniclavata Khan & Shafee, 1977: 32–34, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined. SYN. NOV.

Ufens afrangiata (Viggiani & Hayat): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 72, 75.

Ufens albiscutellum (Khan & Shafee): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 73, 77.

Ufens magniclavata (Khan & Shafee): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 73, 80.

Type specimens examined: M. albiscutellum: The original description of this species

was based upon 3 females (Holotype and 2 paratypes). The holotype was in alcohol in a

vial with a ticket labelled: ‘Ref. No. 42B, Holotype, ♀ Genus: Mirufens Sp.: albiscutel-

lum sp.n.’ and ‘Host: Oxyrachis tarandus Fabr. India, U.P., Aligarh 10.x.1975 (M.Y.

Khan)’. There are 4 slides with parts of two females. The slides bear the same reference

number and name, but are not designated as paratypes. But as the figures drawn by Khan

& Shafee were from these slide-mounted parts, I regard these as paratypes.

The holotype has deteriorated due to long preservation in alcohol. Therefore, I have

mounted it on a slide in balsam. The original ticket is glued on to the slide.

M. magniclavata: The original description of this species was based upon a holotype

and a paratype, both females. The holotype was in alcohol in a vial with a ticket labelled:

‘Ref. No. K-1D, Holotype, ♀, Genus: Mirufens sp.: magniclavata sp. n.’ and ‘Host:

Oxyrachis tarandus Fabr. India, U.P., Aligarh 10.x.1975 (M.Y.Khan)’.

There are two slides containing one female. The slides bear the same reference num-

ber and the name, but there is no type designation. But as the figures given by Khan &

Shafee were drawn from these slide-mounted parts, I consider these as paratype parts.

The holotype has deteriorated due to long preservation in alcohol. Therefore, I have

mounted it on a slide in balsam, and the original ticket is glued on to the slide.

Comments: In spite of the so-called differences noted in the key to species by Khan

& Shafee (1977: p.35), the marginal fringe in both albiscutellum and magniclavata are

absent, and both these species have F2 with long setae and the segment is slightly longer

than F1, and hence the above synonymies.

Mirufens brevifuniculata Khan & Shafee

Mirufens brevifuniculata Khan & Shafee, 1977: 31–32, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined.

Ufens brevifuniculata (Khan & Shafee): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 73, 78.


females (holotype and 8 paratypes). The holotype was in alcohol in a vial with a ticket

labelled: ‘Ref. No. 42 A, Holotype, ♀ Genus: Mirufens Sp.: brevifuniculata sp.n.’ and

‘Host: Oxyrachis tarandus Fabr. India, U.P., Aligarh 10.x.1975 (M.Y. Khan)’. There are 3

slides with parts of 2 females, bearing the same name and reference number, but not des-

ignated as paratypes. But as the figures given by Khan & Shafee were drawn from these

slide-mounted parts, I consider these parts as paratypes.

The holotype has deteriorated due to long preservation in alcohol. I have, therefore,

mounted it on slide in balsam, and the original ticket is glued on to the slide.


Comments: This species appears distinct from M. afrangiata Viggiani & Hayat

(1974) in having F1 and F2 subequal in lengths, and absence of long setae on F2; other-

wise it is very close to M. afrangiata.

Mirufens mangiferae Viggiani & Hayat

Mirufens (Trachocera) mangiferae Viggiani & Hayat, 1974: 148–149, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India:

Kancheepuram (ZSI). Determined material in ZDAMU examined. [Also from Aligarh].

Mirufens longiclavata Khan & Shafee, 1977: 34, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU), exam-

ined. SYN. NOV.

Ufens mangiferae (Viggiani & Hayat): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 72, 73.

Ufens longiclavata (Khan & Shafee): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 73, 77.

Type specimens examined: M. longiclavata: The original description of this species

was based on a holotype and two paratypes, all females. The holotype was in alcohol in a

vial with a ticket labelled: ‘Ref. No. 236A, Holotype, ♀. Genus: Mirufens Sp.: longi-

clavata sp.n.’ and ‘Host: Oxyrachis tarandus Fab. India, U.P., Aligarh 10.x.1975 (M.Y.

Khan)’.

There are also 4 slides containing two females. All these slides bear the name of the

species and reference number ‘236’, but are not designated paratypes. The figures given

by Khan & Shafee were drawn from these slide-mounted parts, and hence these are to be

regarded as paratypes.

The holotype has deteriorated due to long preservation in alcohol. Therefore I have

mounted it on slide in balsam under a small piece of coverslip. The original ticket is

glued on to the slide.

Comments: I failed to find any differences between longiclavata and mangiferae.

The so- called differences noted in the key by Khan & Shafee (1977) are actually a misin-

terpretation of the characters given by Viggiani & Hayat (1974), and hence the synon-

ymy. The figure of the antenna (their Fig.11) was drawn from a dried antenna and hence

the clava looks elongate.

Neocentrobiella terebrator Yousuf & Shafee (Fig. 46)

Neocentrobiella terebrator Yousuf & Shafee, 1985a: 31. ♀ Holotype: ♀, India: Agra (ZDAMU),

examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one fore wing and one antenna

on one slide under a large coverslip; rest of body, with the antenna distorted, between two

coverslip pieces on the second slide. Both the slides are labelled: ‘78D Neocentrobiella

terebrator M. Yousuf Agra 4.xi.1983’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Comments: The antennae have 2 anelli (Fig. 46) (not one as noted by the authors and

illustrated). The ovipositor appears to arise from basal third (not base as in viggianii Ha-

yat), but whether the second volvifers are as enormously enlarged as in viggianii can not

be made out in the uncleared holotype.

Oligosita nephotetticum Mani (Figs. 56–60)

Oligosita nephotetticum Mani, 1939: 92, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Bihar: Pusa (NPCI), examined.


females, the holotype and paratypes. The holotype is on a slide under a large, circular

coverslip. The slide has four tickets labelled: ‘Oligosita nephotetticum Mani, ♀’,

‘12.ix.1916 Parasite on eggs of Nephotettix bipunctatus on rice Pusa C.S.Misra.’,


‘HOLOTYPE’ [printed label], and ‘NPC(E)HYM70’. The specimen was mounted with

ventre facing upwards. There are two paratypes, each on one slide under a large, circular

coverslip. Both have the same data as the holotype, but printed labels, ‘PARATYPE’ and

accession numbers ‘NPC(E)HYM71’ and ‘NPC(E)HYM72’. The paratypes are conspeci-

fic with the holotype.

This species is redescribed as the original description was too brief and insufficient

for recognition of the species.

Female: Length, 0.57mm. Head dark brown; thorax with pronotum and pleura dark

brown; mid lobe of mesoscutum brownish with sides, posterior fourth and a median lon-

gitudinal streak, yellow; side lobes, axillae, scutellum, metanotum, and propodeum medi-

ally (mesad of spiracles) yellow; sides of propodeum dark brown; gaster yellow, with

dark brown bands as follows: a broad cross-band in basal half of TI, TII and TIII with

narrow cross-bands, TIV with the cross-band broader than that on TIII, TV-TVII largely,

but apex of TVII white. Antennal scape pallid, pedicel and flagellum pale brown. Wings

hyaline; fore wing with small infuscation attached to apex of stigmal vein and another to

base of parastigma (=premarginal vein). Legs: coxae, outer surface basally of hind tro-

chanters, fore and mid femora except base narrowly and apical fourths or so, and hind

femora dark brown; tibiae, except bases and apices, pale brown; the excepted parts pallid;

tarsal segment 3 of all legs dark brown; segments 1 and 2 of fore tarsi brown, 1 and 2 of

hind tarsi pale brown, 1 and 2 of mid tarsi pallid.

Structural details as illustrated in figures 56–60, but the following may be noted:

Head dorsum about 2.6x as broad as long; frontovertex nearly 2x as broad as an eye

width; ocellar triangle with apical angle obtuse, posterior ocellar line about 1.5x of

ocello-ocular line; eyes, with the head in profile, broadest at upper third with posterior

margin strongly concave; malar space very short, less than one-quarter of eye length

(Figs. 56, 58). Mandible 3-dentate, middle and upper teeth rounded. Antenna as in Fig.

57; funicle segment at most as long as broad, slightly narrower than first segment of

clava.

Thorax with setation normal for the genus: mid lobe, 1+1; each side lobe, 1; each

axilla, 1; scutellum, 1+1; posterior margin of propodeum medially slightly convex, me-

dial length nearly 2x of medial length of metanotum. Fore and hind wings as in Figs. 59

and 60. [Figure of the fore wing was drawn from a wing whose blade is slightly tilted.]

Gaster 1.6x-1.8x as long as thorax, and about a quarter as long as head and thorax

combined; ovipositor (slightly tilted) 3.71x-3.85x as long as third valvula. [Ovipositor

1.36x-1.42x as long as mid tibia, and 1.2x-1.32x as long as hind tibia.]

Male: Not recorded by Mani (1939), but Yousuf & Shafee’s collection in the

ZDAMU contains some apparently conspecific, but badly mounted, males.

Comments: Apart from the brief, but nearly correct, original description, O.

nephotetticum, to my knowledge, was recorded by Yousuf & Shafee (1984a; 1988). I

found a large number of specimens (about 200) on slides in ZDAMU, determined as

nephotetticum by Yousuf, and collected from localities in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarkhand,

Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan States. But these are

a mixture of at least 4 species including Mani’s species. As all these specimens are in

drops of balsam without coverslips, it is not possible to confirm the determination.


Oligosita nephotetticum belongs to a group of species characterized by the funicle

segment being quadrate or broader than long; large eyes which narrow ventrally; very

short malar space; fore wing blade with numerous setae; hind wing very narrow with a

single line of dorsal setae; and propodeum medially with a slightly convex (not triangu-

lar) posterior margin.

Oligositoides gudurensis Yousuf & Shafee

Oligositoides gudurensis Yousuf & Shafee, 1984c: 369–370, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Gudur

(ZDAMU), examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype on a slide in a drop of balsam, with one antenna

and one fore wing removed and is left in the same drop of balsam. The slide is labelled:

‘132 Oligositoides gudurensis sp.n. M. Yousuf Gudur 30.i.1984’ and a ticket with ‘Holo-


Comments: This species is misplaced in Oligositoides. It belongs to Paracentrobia

and a possible senior synonym of P. brevifringiata Yousuf & Shafee (1988). However, as

the genus Paracentrobia is being revised by Mr. J. George of the University of Califor-

nia, Riverside U.S.A., I leave this species to his final decision.

Paracentrobia nephotetticum (Mani), comb. nov. (Figs. 53–55)

Westwoodella nephotetticum Mani, 1939: 92-93, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Orissa: Balasore (NPCI),

examined.

Oligosita manii Viggiani, 1981: 126. Replacement name for W. nephotetticum Mani, 1939, considered

preoccupied by O. nephotetticum Mani, 1939. SYN. NOV.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on a slide under a large, circular coverslip.

The head is detached, partly broken, with one scape and pedicel and another scape lo-

cated near the head; one flagellum and parts of legs are near the margin of the coverslip;

rest of the body is mounted ventro-laterally. The slide has the following tickets labelled:

‘Westwoodella nephotetticum M.S.Mani’, ‘October 1915 Parasite on eggs of Nephotettix

bipunctatus on rice Balasore B8 Orissa C.S.Misra’, ‘HOLOTYPE’ [a printed label], and

‘NPC(E)HYM107’.

This species is redescribed as the original description is very brief and largely erro-

neous.

Female: Head golden yellow; pronotum with collar and anterior margin broadly dark

brown, middle area yellow; mesothoracic dorsum, metanotum and propodeum golden

yellow [mid lobe probably lightly infuscate brown anteriorly]; mesepisternum anterior

and posterior margins in upper halves, upper margin of mesepimeron, and lower margin

of metapleuron, dark brown; rest of pleura golden yellow; gaster yellow, with dark brown

bands or spots as follows: a large spot (probably medially connected by pale brown) on

each side of TI; TII-TV with wide bands; TVI with a large spot on each side; TVII with a

large spot except apex which is white; posterior half or so of TI-TIII yellow or appear

yellow as the terga are slightly distended. Scape pale; pedicel dark brown; color of funi-

cle and clava faded and claval segments slightly pressed. Wings hyaline; fore wing with

an infuscate band as in Fig. 55. Legs: fore and mid legs, including coxae, pallid to white;

fore coxae basally brownish; hind coxae and femora except distal ends, dark brown; hind

tibiae, except white bases, pale brownish yellow; fore tarsi pale yellow brown, mid and

hind tarsi pale yellow to white.


Antenna with a 2-segmented funicle (Fig. 54). Fore wing 2.91x as long as broad;

marginal fringe one-third of wing width. Ovipositor: hind tibia, 28:15.

Comments: Mani’s (1939) brief description is nearly completely erroneous. The

pedicel is about 0.5x of scape length, and the funicle is 2-segmented and both segments

combined may be as long as broad. This species belongs to Paracentrobia, and may

eventually prove to be a senior synonym of P. garuda Subba Rao (1974).

As the species was described in Westwoodella, a synonym of Oligosita, Viggiani

(1981) while transferring this species to Oligosita proposed a replacement name, O.

manii since Westwoodella nephotetticum is preoccupied in Oligosita by nephotetticum

Mani (1939). As the study of the holotype has shown that W. nephotetticum belongs in

Paracentrobia, the original name is restored and the replacement name is considered its

synonym.

Paratrichogramma nigricorpa Yousuf & Shafee

Paratrichogramma nigricorpa Yousuf & Shafee 1992: 54–55, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh

(ZDAMU), presumed holotype examined.



fore wing under a large coverslip, and rest of body (head detached) in a drop of balsam

on the second slide. These slides are labelled: ‘M.Y.R.A. 588 Paratrichogramma nigri-

corpa sp.n. M. Yousuf, Quila Road, Aligarh 30.vi.1990’. [‘nigricorpa’ written with pen-

cil].

There is no holotype designations on the slides, but the data and the figures agree

with that given in the original publication. Therefore, I have considered these slide

mounted parts as that of the holotype and labelled as such in my handwriting.

Comments: The specimen was in alcohol before being put in a drop of balsam. A few

errors in the original description are corrected. The head is yellow, but the thorax and

sides of gaster are dark brown; gaster dorsum appears pale brown; coxae and hind femora

are brown. Radicle, scape except distal fourth or so, pedicel and clava dark brown, F1

pale brown. There are apparently 2 anelli; the second anellus adpressed with base of F1.

Fore wing strongly infuscate under venation, the infuscation extending a little beyond

apex of venation on disc. The ovipositor originates from about basal third of gaster. This

species appear distinct from P. giraulti Hayat & Shujauddin.

Paratrichogramma quilonensis Yousuf & Shafee

Paratrichogramma quilonensis Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 84–85, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Quilon

(ZDAMU), examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one with one antenna beyond

scape, and one fore wing with basal third missing and blade folded, under a large cover-

slip, and rest of body with head detached in a drop of balsam on the second slide. Both

the slides are labelled: ‘163 Paratrichogramma quilonensis sp.n. M. Yousuf Quilon

28.ii.1984’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink. The antenna on slide is pressed

and damaged, but the one (in a drop of balsam) on the second slide is fairly visible.

Comments: P. quilonensis appears to be extremely close to, if not a synonym of, the

type species, P. cinderella Girault [Compare Fig. 7 D-F given by Yousuf & Shafee (1988)

with that given by Doutt & Viggiani (1968: Fig. 6. A & B)].


Genus Parhispidophila Yousuf & Shafee

Parhispidophila Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 136. Type species Parhispidophila singularis Yousuf &

Shafee, by monotypy and original designation.

The original diagnosis of the genus is too brief to identify the genus, and the species

description is partly erroneous and incomplete. Therefore, a rediagnosis of the genus is

given and the species is redescribed, based on the types and the recently collected speci-

mens (one female, two males; see under ‘Records of species’ in this paper).

Female: Frontovertex more than 2x as broad as an eye; antennal toruli placed higher

on face, distance between mouth margin to a torulus one-fourth greater than distance

from a torulus to eye margin; inter-torular distance one-third of torulus mouth margin dis-

tance; malar sulcus present. Mandible with two sharp teeth and two blunt, rounded teeth

(Fig. 63). Maxillary palp unsegmented. Antennal formula, 1,1,2,3, with 2 anelli; first fu-

nicle segment (F1) scale-like, adpressed with one side of base of F2; F2 ‘twisted’; F2

and clava with prominent longitudinal sensilla, and clava with long, hyaline setae (Fig.

61).

Thorax robust and compact; pronotum medially divided; axillae advanced, large and

with posterior extensions (=postaxilla); propodeum medially subequal in length to

metanotum. Fore wing (Fig. 62) broad, with RS1 present; discal setae arranged in lines, 9

lines of dorsal setae and 9 lines of ventral setae; costal cell with one prominent seta at

basal third, and a line of dorsal setae distally; submarginal vein with one seta; parastigma

(=premarginal vein) with 2 setae, and 2 setae behind parastigma; marginal vein longer

than stigmal vein or parastigma. Hind wing with apex narrowly rounded; disc with 3 lines

of short setae; marginal fringe shorter than wing width. Legs: fore and mid femora with

fine sculpture of longitudinal lines; hind femora with raised cellulate-reticulate sculpture;

mid tibiae with long setae (bristles?) along dorsal margins.

Gaster not longer than head and thorax combined; TVII short; ovipositor originates

from about basal third of gaster and not exserted at apex.

Male: Similar to female in nearly all the characters except for the genitalia. Genitalia

(Fig. 67) with phallobase nearly cylindrical, base rounded, apex provided with inwardly

curving hooked digiti, aedeagus with a deep notch.

Comments: The relationships of this genus are not very clear. It appears related most

closely to Ufens Girault and Zagella Girault. The discal setation is about as in Ufens, but

the venation and the similarity between the female and the male antennae relate Parhispi-

dophila with Zagella. However, the structure of the male genitalia is quite different from

the genitalia in these two genera. In the absence of males, it is impossible to separate

Parhispidophila from either Ufens or Zagella. (See Doutt & Viggiani, 1968; Triapitsyn,

2003, for comments on the characters of Ufens and Zagella; Viggiani, 1985, for male

genitalia in Zagella floridae Viggiani.)

Parhispidophila singularis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 61–69)

Parhispidophila singularis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 137, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Haryana: Gurgaon,

Punhana (ZDAMU), examined. [Paratype from Aligarh].

Type specimens examined: The original description of this species was based upon

two females, the holotype and the paratype. The holotype is on two slides; one slide with

one antenna and one fore wing under a large coverslip; rest of body (head detached, bro-

ken, antenna missing) in a drop of balsam on the second slide. Both the slides are la-


belled: ‘176 Parhispidophila singularis gen. et sp. n. A.K.Chishti Punhana 1.x.1984’, and

a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink. The paratype is on one slide; one antenna and

one fore wing under a large coverslip; and one complete specimen (minus one antenna

beyond pedicel) in a drop of balsam. Thus the fore wing present under the large coverslip

is definitely not from the paratype. The slide is labelled: ‘396B Parhispidophila singularis

M. Yousuf Aligarh 28.vi.1985’, and a ticket with ‘Paratype’ written in green ink.

Redescription: The body of the holotype (head detached) and paratype are both lat-

erally mounted, and the color of the paratype and some extent that of the holotype has

faded. Therefore, the redescription of female is largely based upon the recently collected

specimen.

Female: Body dark brown except for whitish vertex, pronotum, scutellum, petiole,

and TVII of gaster; side lobes of mesoscutum posteriorly (narrow part) pale brown. An-

tenna dark brown, except pale brown-yellow distal third or so of scape and whitish third

segment of clava. Wings hyaline; fore wing with a small infuscate patch attached to apex

of stigmal vein; parastigma and distal half of marginal vein dark, proximal half of mar-

ginal vein white; stigmal vein brown. Legs, including coxae, dark brown, except paler

(whitish) apices of femora, bases and apices of tibiae and all tarsal segments.

Body strongly sculptured, sculpture mainly consisting of raised longitudinally or

transversely oriented ridge-like lines. Vertex with transversely elongate reticulate; frons

and face with oblique or longitudinally lineolate-reticulate sculpture; mid lobe of mesos-

cutum, axillae and scutellum with raised lineolate-reticulate sculpture; propodeum medi-

ally with transversely oriented lines, but sides with irregularly raised reticulate; gastral

terga 1-5 (TI-TV) with longitudinally lineolate-reticulate sculpture, but sides of terga

with cellulate-reticulate sculpture; TI medially with obliquely lineolate sculpture; TVI

with sculpture fine; TVII smooth.

Vertex with strong, short bristles; a line of setae adjacent to each eye margin; face

with about 8 pairs of fine setae; the space above clypeus and below toruli with 5 pairs of

setae; clypeus with 4 long, fine setae; eyes with sparse, transparent setae, each seta not

longer than diameter of a facet. Thoracic dorsum with setae as follows: pronotal collar,

5+5; mid lobe, 2+2; each axilla, 1; each side lobe, 2; scutellum, 2+2; each side of propo-

deum, 3. Gastral terga with setae as follows: TI, 3+3; TII, 1+3+3+1; TIII, 4+4; TIV,

1+3+3+1; TV, a line of about 10; TVI, 3+3; TVII, 4.

Mouth margin as in Fig. 63. Antenna as in Fig. 61. Fore wing (Fig. 62) less than 2x

as long as broad; venation with a distinct ‘break’ between parastigma and marginal vein.

Hind wing about 7.5x as long as broad, with marginal fringe shorter than wing width

(16:22). Ovipositor about 1.25x as long as mid tibia, with third valvula very short, about

one-tenth of ovipositor length or less than 0.5x of mid basitarsus (9:81:22).

Male: Similar to female in nearly all characters, except for the following: Antenna

with second and third segments of clava white; fore wing with a light infuscation on disc

below stigmal vein; TVI also nearly smooth. Genitalia (Fig. 67) with phallobase less than

0.5x of mid tibial length (31:64). Antennae, apex of gaster and part of fore wing are illus-

trated in Figs. 64-66, 68, and 69.

Prosoligosita meerutensis Yousuf & Shafee

Prosoligosita meerutensis Yousuf & Shafee 1993a: 29–30, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Meerut: Kharkhoda

(ZDAMU), presumed holotype examined.



single female, the holotype. The presumed holotype is on two slides; one slide with one

antenna and one fore wing under a large coverslip, and rest of the body on the second

slide in a drop of balsam. Both slides bear no species name and no holotype designation,

but the data and the specimen agree with the description and figure given by Yousuf &

Shafee, except that the fore wing is slightly different. The slides are labelled: ‘M.Y.R.A.

642 Prosoligosita sp.n. Kharkhoda Distt. – Meerut. 29.ix.1990 M. Yousuf.’

[There is no species name on the ticket.]

I consider this specimen as the holotype as the figure of the antenna, the description

and the data agree with that given in the original publication. Therefore, I have labelled

the slide as ‘Prosoligosita meerutensis Yousuf & Shafee, Holotype ♀. Det. M. Hayat

2007.’

Prosoligosita perplexa Hayat & Husain (Figs. 30, 31)

Prosoligosita perplexa Hayat & Husain, 1981: 81, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (BMNH). Paratypes

in ZDAMU examined.

Paruscanoidea longiclavata Yousuf & Shafee, 1984b: 35–36, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Moradabad


Hayatia longiclavata (Yousuf & Shafee): Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 168.

Type specimen examined: Paruscanoidea longiclavata: The original description of

this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides;

one with both antennae (one without scape) and one fore wing under a large coverslip,

the rest of the body fragmented, and on a second slide in a large drop of balsam. Both the

slides are labelled: ‘No. 123T Hayatia longiclavata (Yousuf & Shafee) from Paras-

canoidea M. Yousuf. Moradabad 22.xi.1983” and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red

ink. It is obvious that the slides were labelled after the species was transferred to Hayatia

from Paruscanoidea.

Comments: The figure of the antenna given by Yousuf & Shafee (1984b) is errone-

ous. The clava is 4-segmented, the second segment shorter than the first (Fig. 30). The

study of the holotype of P. longiclavata leaves no doubt that it is a synonym of P. per-

plexa.

Pseudobrachysticha semiaurea Girault (Figs. 41–45)

Pseudobrachysticha semiaurea Girault, 1915: 233, ♀ ♂. Philippines: Los Banos (USNM), not

examined.

Paruscanoidea indica Mani, 1939: 91, ♀ ♂. India: Bihar, Pusa (NPCI), examined. SYN. NOV.

Pseudobrachysticha semiaurea Girault: Gahan 1922: 21–23, ♀ ♂. India: Bihar: Pusa, redescription.

Pseudobrachysticha indica (Mani): Hayat & Subba Rao, 1986: 201.

Type specimens examined: Paruscanoidea indica: The Holotype, Allotype and Para-

types, in all 6 females and 10 males, as stated by Mani (1939) are on a single slide under

a large coverslip. The data on the slide agrees with that given by Mani (1939). There is no

marking on the slide to indicate which one is the holotype and the allotype among the 6

females and 10 males.

Comments: Pseudobrachysticha semiaurea was recorded from India (Bihar, Pusa) by

Gahan (1922) from material reared from the eggs of Hilda bengalensis by T.B. Fletcher.

Gahan identified the species after comparing the specimens with the types present in the

U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., and redescribed the species in considerable

details. Yousuf & Shafee (1988) have not included this genus in their key to the Indian

genera.


Paruscanoidea indica Mani was transferred to Pseudobrachysticha by Hayat &

Subba Rao (1986) because P. indica was described from the same material collected by

T.B. Fletcher from eggs of Hilda bengalensis from Pusa (Bihar). Obviously the same ma-

terial was identified 17 years earlier by Gahan as Pseudobrachysticha semiaurea, and this

record was overlooked by Mani (1939). Yousuf & Shafee (1988:p.178) state that the

placement of Paruscanoidea indica in Pseudobrachysticha was erroneous, but failed to

indicate whether its original placement in Paruscanoidea was correct or not, as they do

not include this later genus also in their key to the Indian genera.

I find no character to separate Paruscanoidea indica from Pseudobrachysticha semi-

aurea and, therefore, placed Mani’s species in synonymy with P. semiaurea. The elon-

gated postmarginal vein shown by Mani (1939: Text Fig. 7) is actually the two lines of

setae (one ventral and one dorsal) which run from apex of venation to apical margin and

which, under lower magnification of a microscope, may appear as a pale colored post-

marginal vein. Gahan (1922) erred in stating that the clava is 2-segmented whereas it is 3-

segmented in the female and 2-segmented in the male or as Doutt & Viggiani (1968) state

there is one funicle segment and a bisegmented clava in the female, and an unsegmented

clava in the male.

Genus Tumidiclava Girault

The species described in this genus by Yousuf & Shafee (1988), as those of other

genera, suffer from inadequate or erroneous descriptions and inaccurate figures. It is now

impossible to determine the color of the specimens unless it is completely brown to dark

brown. For this reason, I have not used color character in the key. In spite of these inade-

quacies, four species appear to be valid, and the fifth species, T. magnicorpa is definitely

misplaced and, therefore, it is not included in the following key to species (see under that

species).

Key to Indian species of Tumidiclava, females

1. Fore wing about 2.66x as long as broad; discal setae apparently arranged in lines;

marginal fringe of fore wing along anterior margin begin just distad of end of

venation, longest fringe about two-fifths of wing width; hypopygium extending

to about level of TVI; ovipositor long, extending from level of TII .......................

....................................................................................sasniensis Yousuf & Shafee

-- Fore wing not more than 2.33x as long as broad, discal setae sparse, short to very

short and apparently irregularly arranged; marginal fringe short, less than one-

fifth of wing width. Other characters same or different ........................................2

2. Marginal fringe of fore wing along anterior margin of wing begin just distad of vena-

tion; marginal vein with 3 setae; ovipositor originates from about basal one-third

of gaster; hypopygium prominent, extending to about level of T V of gaster.........

................................................................................. tenkasiensis Yousuf & Shafee

-- Marginal fringe along anterior margin of wing begin at least after a distance equal to

length of marginal vein; marginal vein with 2 setae; hypopygium does not

extend beyond two-thirds length of gaster ............................................................3

3. Antennal clava relatively robust, 2.25x as long as broad; pedicel less than 2x (about

1.75x) as long as broad ................................................agraensis Yousuf & Shafee

-- Clava relatively narrow, about 2.75x as long as broad; pedicel about 2x as long as

broad ....................................................................... longiclavata Yousuf & Shafee


Tumidiclava agraensis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 23, 24)

Tumidiclava agraensis Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 111–112, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Agra (ZDAMU),

examined.



fore wing under a large coverslip; the rest of body (head detached, broken longitudinally

into two, one antenna attached) in a drop of balsam. The slides are labelled: ‘488 Tumidi-

clava agraensis sp.n. M. Yousuf. Agra. 21.xi.1985’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in

red ink.

Tumidiclava longiclavata Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 27–29)

Tumidiclava longiclavata Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 109, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined.



fore wing under a large coverslip; the second slide with rest of the specimen (head broken

longitudinally) ) in a drop of balsam. [I have removed the antenna, but left it on the same

slide in balsam]. The slides are labelled: ‘399 Tumidiclava longiclavata sp.n. M. Yousuf

Aligarh 4.vii.1985’, and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Tumidiclava magnicorpa Yousuf & Shafee. Species incertae sedis (Figs. 18, 19)

Tumidiclava magnicorpa Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 108–109, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh

(ZDAMU), examined.

Type specimens examined: The original description of this species was based upon a

female holotype and a male paratype. The holotype is on a single slide; with one antenna

and one fore wing under a large coverslip and rest of body (head detached) in a drop of

balsam. The slide is labelled: ‘406 Tumidiclava magnicorpa sp.n. M. Yousuf Aligarh

24.vii.1985’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

One paratype male is on a slide with same data as holotype and collection number

‘298’, and a ticket with ‘Paratype’ written in green ink.

Comments: The apex of antennal clava does not bear a rod-like projection (a

characteristic feature of all females in this genus), but has only strong setae apically, and

the clava is 4-segmented. The fore wing venation and the discal setation are as in Tumidi-

clava species. This species is either an anomalous member of this genus or would require

a separate (new) genus for its reception. I, therefore, consider it as a species incertae

sedis in Tumidiclava.

Tumidiclava sasniensis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 20–22)

Tumidiclava sasniensis Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 108, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh, Sasni (ZDAMU),

examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one with one antenna (pressed

due to coverslip pressure) and one fore wing under a large coverslip; the second slide

with rest of specimen (head detached) in a drop of balsam. The slides are labelled: ‘509

Tumidiclava sasniensis sp.n. M. Yousuf Sasni (U.P.) 2.i.1986’ and a ticket with ‘Holo-



Tumidiclava tenkasiensis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 25, 26)

Tumidiclava tenkasiensis Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 109–111, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Tenkasi (ZDAMU),

examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on one slide, one antenna and one fore wing

under a large coverslip; rest of body (head and part of the thorax detached) in a large drop

of balsam. The slide is labelled: ‘166 Tumidiclava tenkasiensis sp.n. M. Yousuf Tenkasi

18.II.1984’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Genus Ufens Girault

The genus Ufensia Girault was synonymized with Ufens by Doutt & Viggiani

(1968), but Viggiani (1988) while describing a species from Italy, stated that the male

genitalia in these two genera are different. But in the absence of males, it is almost im-

possible to place a specimen with ‘twisted’ funicle segments in either Ufens or Ufensia.

Therefore, all the species in which males are unknown are retained in the genus Ufens.

Six of the seven species described by Yousuf & Shafee (1988, 1992) [The male recorded

for Ufens angustipennis has proved to belong to Mirufens] are based upon females, and

the male genitalia in Ufens breviclavata are similar to those illustrated for Ufens species

by Viggiani (1971).

Key to Indian species of Ufens, females

1. F1 scale-like, adpressed with base of F2; clava short, about 2x as long as broad (Fig.

11); marginal vein of fore wing clearly longer than stigmal vein or parastigma

(=premarginal vein) (Fig. 10) ................................. breviclavata Yousuf & Shafee

-- F1 not scale-like, at most shorter than and about as broad as, F2; marginal vein at

most subequal in length to stigmal vein or parastigma .........................................2

2. F1 and F2 with anterior margin oblique, with dorsal length of F1 greater than dorsal

length of F2, and each provided with one long setae which is as long as width of

the segment (Fig. 1); fore wing disc relatively more densely setose with apex

moderately convex; marginal vein subequal in length to stigmal vein (Fig. 1)

...............................................................................gurgaonensis Yousuf & Shafee

-- Only F1 with anterior margin oblique, but at its longest not longer than length of F2

(Figs. 3, 9), and each provided with short setae, the longest setae shorter than the

width of the segment; fore wing disc relatively less densely to sparsely setose,

its apex less convex to nearly straight; marginal vein at most subequal in length

to stigmal vein .......................................................................................................3

3. First segment of clava with apex only slightly oblique so that the segment is more or

less cylindrical (Figs.3, 9); marginal vein nearly as long as stigmal vein (Figs. 4,

8)................................................................................jaipurensis Yousuf & Shafee

-- First segment of clava strongly oblique (Fig. 5); marginal vein apparently shorter

than stigmal vein (Fig. 6).............................................latipennis Yousuf & Shafee

Ufens breviclavata Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 10, 11)

Ufens breviclavata Yousuf & Shafee, 1992: 53–54, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Moradabad (ZDAMU),

examined.

Type specimens examined: The original description of this species was based upon a

holotype female and 3 male allotypes (sic). The holotype is on two slides; one slide with

one antenna and one fore wing under as large coverslip, and rest of body (head detached)


in a drop of balsam on the second slide. The slides are labelled: ‘M.Y. 429 ♀ Ufens bre-

viclavata sp.n. Ex. Oxyrachis tarandus Moradabad M. Yousuf 18.ix.1985’ and a ticket

with ‘Holotype’ written in black ink.

The ‘allotypes’ are on three slides. These bear the name of the species and other data

as for the holotype, but with reference numbers ‘M.Y. 496’ (one slide with one male in a

drop of balsam) and ‘M.Y. 463’ (2 slides: one slide with one antenna and one fore wing

under a large coverslip; rest of body in a drop of balsam on the second slide), and a small

ticket on each slide with ‘Allotype’ written in black ink. I have now put small coverslips

on the specimens which are in a drop of balsam.

There are only 2 males (not 3) and both labelled ‘Allotype’. As there can not be 3 al-

lotype males, I consider these allotype designations as paratype designations.

Comments: The male genitalia are as in Ufens species (Viggiani, 1971: Fig. VII.5),

and, therefore, this species is retained in Ufens. The female is more similar to female of

Parhispidophila Yousuf & Shafee (1988) in having the first funicle segment scale-like

and adpressed with the base of the second funicle segment, but the male genitalia in

Parhispidophila are quite different. (See under Parhispidophila singularis ).

Ufens gurgaonensis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 1, 2)

Ufens gurgaonensis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 75–77, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Haryana: Gurgaon

(ZDAMU), examined.

Type specimen examined: This species was described from a single female, the holo-

type. The holotype is on two slides; one with one complete antenna, one antenna beyond

pedicel, and one fore wing under a large coverslip, and rest of body (head detached) in a

drop of balsam on the second slide. One slide labelled: ‘177 Ufens gurgaonensis sp.n.

A.K. Chishti Punhana Distt.- Gurgaon 1.x.1984’ and the second slide labelled: ‘177

Ufens gurgaonensis sp.n. A.K. Chishti Gurgaon Haryana 1.x.1984’. Both the slides have

tickets with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Ufens jaipurensis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 3, 4, 8, 9)

Ufens jaipurensis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 80, 82, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Jaipur (ZDAMU), exam-

ined.

Ufens angustipennis Yousuf & Shafee 1988: 77–78, ♀ ♂. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined. SYN. NOV.

Type specimens examined: U. jaipurensis: The original description of this species

was based upon a single female, the holotype. It is on two slides; one with one antenna

and one fore wing under a large coverslip; rest of body (head detached, broken into two,

and antenna beyond scape detached) in a drop of balsam on the second slide. Both slides

labelled: ‘454 Ufens jaipurensis sp.n. M. Yousuf Jaipur 16.xi.1985’ and a ticket with

‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

U. angustipennis: The original description of this species was based upon two fe-

males and one male (holotype female, and paratypes). The holotype is on two slides; one

slide with one antenna and one fore wing under a large coverslip; rest of body (mesotho-

racic terga detached) in a drop of balsam on the second slide. Both the slides labelled:

‘372 ♀ Ufens angustipennis sp.n. M. Yousuf Aligarh 1.II.1985’ and a ticket with ‘Holo-

type’ written in red ink. There are two slides, one with male and the second with a fe-

male, both with same data as the holotype, but bearing reference numbers 346 and 382,

and a ticket each with ‘Paratype’ written in green ink.


Comments: These two species are synonymous. The slight differences are mainly

due to fact that the holotype of jaipurensis is a slightly larger specimen with fore wing

1.6x as long as broad, and the antenna has not shrunken, whereas the holotype of an-

gustipennis has the fore wing 1.57x as long as broad and the antennal funicle and clava

are slightly shrunken. The paratype male of angustipennis belongs to some species of

Mirufens.

The name ‘angustipennis’ is a misnomer whereas the wings are as broad as in other

species.

Ufens latipennis Yousuf & Shafee (Figs. 5–7)

Ufens latipennis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 78, 80, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU), exam-

ined.

Ufens alami Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 74, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU), examined. SYN.

NOV.

Ufens singularis Yousuf & Shafee, 1988: 74–75, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU), exam-

ined. SYN. NOV.

Type specimens examined: U. latipennis: The original description of this species was

based upon a single female, the holotype. It is on two slides; one slide with one antenna

and one fore wing under a large coverslip; rest of the body (head detached) in a drop of

balsam on the second slide. The slides are labelled: ‘413 Ufens latipennis sp.n. M. Yousuf

Aligarh 6.viii.1985’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

U. alami: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the

holotype. It is on two slides; one slide with one antenna and one fore wing under a large

coverslip; the rest of body (antenna missing) in a drop of balsam on the second slide.

Both slides are labelled: ‘349 Ufens alami sp.n. M. Yousuf Aligarh 30.i.1985’ and a ticket

with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

U. singularis: The original description of this species was based upon one female,

the holotype. It is on two slides; one slide with one antenna and one fore wing under a

large coverslip; and the second slide with rest of body (head detached, clava shrunken) in

a drop of balsam. The slides are labelled: ‘395 ♀ Ufens singularis sp.n. M. Yousuf Ali-

garh 14.v.1985’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Comments: I find no differences of specific value in these three species, all described

from material collected in Aligarh from either of eggs of membracid, Oxyrachis tarandus

(alami), eggs of Oxyrachis sp. (singularis), or eggs of an indetermined membracid (lati-

pennis). The antenna of singularis on slide was shrunken, and that of alami was badly

crushed due to pressure of the coverslip (see Fig. 4G given by Yousuf & Shafee, 1988).

Uscana latipennis (Yousuf & Shafee), comb. nov. (Figs. 47, 48)

Neolathromera latipennis Yousuf & Shafee, 1985a: 32, ♀. Holotype: ♀, India: Aligarh (ZDAMU),

examined.


single female, the holotype. The holotype is on two slides; one slide with one antenna and

one fore wing under a large coverslip; rest of the body (head detached) on the second

slide in a drop of balsam. The slides are labelled: ‘386 Neolathromera latipennis sp.n. M.

Yousuf. Aligarh 15.iv.1985.’ and a ticket with ‘Holotype’ written in red ink.

Comments: In the antenna illustrated by Yousuf & Shafee (1985a; 1988: Fig. 31C)

the basal segment of clava is partly separated (see Fig. 48), but from the figure drawn


from the second antenna attached with the head I could confirm that the clava is 4-

segmented (Fig. 47).

If the synonymy of Zaga Girault (Type species Zaga latipennis Girault) with Us-

cana proposed by Yousuf & Shafee (1988) is accepted, then latipennis Yousuf & Shafee

becomes a secondary homonym of latipennis Girault. But, I agree with Pinto (1997) who

considers Zaga as distinct from Uscana.

Records of species

Note: Unless noted otherwise, the specimens are on slides.

Chaetostricha terebrata (Yousuf & Shafee)

Specimens examined: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh: Lakhimpur (Kheri): Imami Purwa, 2 ♀,

27.ix.2006 (S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R. Khan); Lakhimpur: Dhakin, 1 ♀ (on card),

28.ix.2006 (S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R. Khan); Bahraich: Tikona Mod, 4 ♀ (2 on cards),

1.x.2006, (F.R. Khan); Bahraich: Gulwa Ghat, 2 ♀, 2.x.2006 (F.R. Khan); Balrampur:

Dusehein, 2 ♀, 1 ♂, [+ 1 ♀ doubtfully det as terebrata], 4.x.2006 (F.R. Khan); Gonda:

Raja Pura, 1 ♀, 8.x.2006 (F.R. Khan).

Lathromeromyia dimorpha Hayat

Specimens examined: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh: Pilibhit: Roop Pur Kirpa, 1 ♀,

24.ix.2006 (S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R. Khan); Lakhimpur: Imami Purwa, 1 ♀, 27.ix.2006

(S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R. Khan); Lakhimpur: Dhakin, 3 ♀, 28.ix.2006 (S.M.A. Badrud-

din & F.R. Khan); Bahraich: Mulla Purwa, 4 ♀, 30.ix.2006 (S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R.

Khan); Bahraich: Tikona mod, 2 ♀, 1.x.2006 (F.R. Khan); Bahraich: Gulwa Ghat, 7 ♀

(2♀ on a card), 2.x.2006 (F.R. Khan).

Neocentrobiella viggianii Hayat

Specimen examined: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh: Bahraich: Gulwa Ghat, 1 ♀, 2.x.2006

(F.R. Khan)

Paratrichogramma giraulti Hayat & Shujauddin

Specimen examined: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh: Lakhimpur (Kheri): Lakhkhi Purwa, 1♀,

26.ix.2006 (S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R. Khan).

Parhispidophila singularis Yousuf & Shafee

Specimens examined: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh: Pilibhit: Pakadia Naugonva, 1♀,

22.ix.2006 (S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R. Khan); Pilibhit: Roop Pur Kirpa, 1♂, 24.ix.2006

(S.M.A. Badruddin & F.R. Khan); Bahraich: Tikona Mod, 1♂, 1.x.2006 (F.R. Khan).

Prosoligosita perflexa Hayat & Husain (Fig. 70)

Specimens examined: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh: Gonda: Porterganj, 1♂, 7.x.2006 (F.R.

Khan); Gonda: Rajapura, 1♀, 8.x.2006 (F.R. Khan).

Acknowledgements

I thank the I.C.A.R., New Delhi, and Dr. V.V. Ramamurthy, Division of Entomology,

Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, and the national coordinator of the

‘Network Project on Insect Biosystematics’, for financial assistance and for loan of the

types. I also thank the Aligarh Muslim University and the Chairman, Department of Zo-

ology, A.M.U., for providing space and other facilities.


References

DOUTT, R. L. & VIGGIANI, G., 1968. The classification of the Trichogrammatidae (Hymenoptera : Chal-

cidoidea). Procceedings of the California Academy of Sciences (Fourth Series), 35: 477–586.

GAHAN, A. B., 1922. Descriptions of miscellaneous new reared parasitic Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the

United States National Museum, 61: 1–24.

GIRAULT, A. A., 1912. Australian Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea – I. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 1:

66–116.

GIRAULT, A. A., 1915. A new genus and species of Trichogrammatidae from the Philippines. Canadian

Entomologist, 47: 233–234.

GIRAULT, A. A., 1920. New genera and species of Australian Trichogrammatidae (Hymenoptera). Insecu-

tor Inscitiae Menstruus, 8: 199–203.

HAYAT, M., 1980. The genus Neocentrobiella and Xiphogramma from India, with descriptions of two new

species (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Bollettino del Laboratoria de Entomologia Agraria

‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici, 37: 203–207.

HAYAT, M., 1981. The genera Chaetogramma and Lathromeromyia from India, with descriptions of two

new species (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Bollettino del Laboratoria de Entomologia Agraria

‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portico, 38: 73–79.

HAYAT, M. & HUSAIN, T., 1981. A new genus of Trichogrammatidae from India (Hymenoptera: Chalci-

doidea). Bollettino del Laboratoria de Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici, 38: 81–83.

HAYAT, M. & SHUJAUDDIN, 1980. The genus Paratrichogramma from India, with description of a new

species (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Bollettino del Laboratoria de Entomologia Agraria

‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici, 37: 199–201.

HAYAT, M. & SUBBA RAO, B. R., 1986. Family Trichogrammatidae: pp. 193 – 208. In. The Chalcidoidea

(Insecta: Hymenoptera) of India and the adjacent countries. Part II. A catalogue of Chalcidoidea of In-

dia and the adjacent countries. Editors: B.R. Subba Rao and M. Hayat. Oriental Insects, 20: 1–430.

KHAN, M. Y., 1975a. A new species of the genus Brachygrammatella Girault (Hymenoptera: Trichogram-

matidae) from Aligarh, India. Current Science, Bangalore, 44: 430–432.

KHAN, M. Y., 1975b. A new species of Trichogrammatidae (Hymenoptera) reared from the eggs of

Oxyrachis tarandus Fabr. (Homoptera: Membracidae). Current Science, Bangalore, 44: 635–636.

KHAN, M.Y., 1976. A new name for Brachygrammatella indica Khan (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae).

Current Science, Bangalore, 45: 392.

KHAN, M. Y. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1977. Indian species of the genus Mirufens (Hym.: Trichogrammatidae).

Entomophaga, 22: 31–35.

MANI, M. S., 1939. Descriptions of new and records of some known chalcidoid and other hymenopterous

parasites from India. Indian Journal of Entomology, 1: 69–99.

PINTO, J. D., 1997. Chapter 22. Trichogrammatidae: pp.726–752. In: Annotated keys to the genera of

Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Editors: Gibson, G. A. P., Huber, J. T. & Woolley, J. B. NRC

Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. Pp. 794.

SUBBA RAO, B. R., 1974. Four new species of Paracentrobia Howard, 1897 (Hymenoptera: Tricho-

grammatidae). Mushi, Fukuoka, 48: 1–5.

TRIAPITSYN, S. V., 2003. Taxonomic notes on the genera and species of Trichogrammatidae (Hymenop-

tera) – egg parasitoids of the proconiine sharpshooters (Hemiptera: Clypeorrhyncha: Cicadellidae:

Proconiini) in southeastern USA. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 129: 245–265.

VIGGIANI, G., 1971. Recerche sugli Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea XXVIII. Studio morfologica comparativo

dell’armatura genitale esterna maschile dei Trichogrammatidae. Bollettino del Laboratoria de Ento-

mologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici, 29: 181–222.

VIGGIANI, G., 1981. Note su alcune specie di Oligosita Walker (Hym. Trichogrammatidae) e descrizione

di Quattro nuove specie. Bollettino del Laboratotia de Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Por-

tici, 38: 125–132.

VIGGIANI, G., 1985. A new species of Zagella (Hym. Trichogrammatidae) from Florida. Bollettino del

Laboratoria de Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici, 42: 15–17.

VIGGIANI, G., 1988. Ufensia minuta sp.n. (Hymenoptera : Trichogrammatidae), ooparasitoide di Reuteria

marqueti Puton (Hemiptera : Miridae), con note sulle specie paleartiche del genere Ufensia Girault .

Bollettino del Laboratoria de Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici, 45: 15–21.

VIGGIANI, G. & HAYAT, M., 1974. New trichogrammatids from India (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).

Bollettino del Laboratoria de Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici, 31: 145–151.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1984a. Species of Oligosita Walker (Hymenoptera: Trichogramatidae)

from India. Indian Journal of Systematic Entomology, 1: 15–22.


YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1984b. First report of Paruscanoidea and Haeckeliania (Hymenoptera:

Trichogrammatidae) from India, with descriptions of two new species. Indian Journal of Systematic

Entomology, 1: 35–38.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1984c. First report of Zaga Girault and Oligositoides Doutt (Hymenop-

tera: Trichogrammatidae) from India, with descriptions of three new species. Mitteilungen der

Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 57: 367–370.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1985a. New species of the genera Neocentrobiella and Neolathromera

(Trichogrammatidae: Chalcidoidea) from India. Indian Journal of Systematic Entomology, 2: 31–34.

(*)

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1985b. Descriptions of three new species of Trichogrammatidae (Hy-

menoptera) from India. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 58: 299–

302.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1985c. Descriptions of two new species of Trichogrammatidae (Hymen-

optera: Chalcidoidea) from India. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft,

58: 303–305.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1988. Taxonomy of Indian Trichogrammatidae (Hymenoptera: Chalci-

doidea). Indian Journal of Systematic Entomology, 4: 55–200.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1992. Two new species of Trichogrammatidae (Hymenoptera: Chalci-

doidea) from India. Indian Journal of Systematic Entomology, 8: 53–56.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1993a. A new species of Prosoligosita (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammati-

dae) from India. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 12A: 29–30.

YOUSUF, M. & SHAFEE, S. A., 1993b. A new species of Chaetogramma Doutt (Hymenoptera: Tricho-

grammatidae) from India. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 12A: 49–50.

(*) Original paper not consulted.

Footnote: The genus Parhispidophila Yousuf & Shafee, 1988 has been synonymized with

Burksiella De Santis, 1957 by Pinto, 2006. Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 15 (1): 91.

[Pinto spelled the genus name as PARAHISPIDOPHILA!]


Figs. 1–7. (1, 2) Ufens gurgaonensis, holotype ♀: 1, flagellum; 2, fore wing, basal

part. (3, 4) Ufens jaipurensis, holotype ♀: 3, antenna; 4, fore wing, basal part. (5, 6)

Ufens latipennis, holotype ♀: 5, antenna; 6, fore wing, basal part. (7) Ufens singularis,

holotype ♀: fore wing, basal part.


Figs. 8–13. (8, 9) Ufens angustipennis, holotype ♀: 8, fore wing, basal part; 9, an-

tenna. (10, 11) Ufens breviclavata, holotype ♀: 10, fore wing, basal part; 11, antenna.

(12, 13) Brachygrammatella singularis, holotype ♀: 12, antenna, scape omitted; 13, fore

wing, basal part.


Figs. 14–22 (14, 15) Aphelinoidea gwaliorensis, holotype ♀. 14, antenna, scape

omitted; 15, fore wing, basal part. (16, 17) Aphelinoidea longiclavata, holotype ♀: 16,

antenna, scape omitted; 17, fore wing, basal part. (18, 19) Tumidiclava magnicorpa,

ho1otype ♀: 18, fore wing venation; 19, antenna. (20–22) Tumidiclava sasniensis, holo-

type ♀: 20, clava, apex of clava from another antenna; 21, fore wing showing distal veins

and part of disc; 22, gaster, lateral.


Figs. 23–31. (23, 24) Tumidiclava agraensis, holotype ♀: 23, antenna; 24, fore wing,

basal part. (25, 26) Tumidiclava tenkasiensis, holotype ♀: 25, apex of clava; 26, fore

wing, basal part. (27–29) Tumidiclava longiclavata, holotype ♀: 27, 28, antennae; 29,

fore wing, basal part. (30, 31) Paruscanoidea longiclavata, holotype ♀: 30, antenna; 31,

fore wing, basal part.


Figs. 32–40. (32, 33) Chaetostricha terebrator, holotype ♀: 32, antenna, scape omit-

ted; 33, gaster, dorso-lateral view. (34, 35) Oligositoides terebratus, holotype ♀: 34, an-

tenna, scape omitted; 35, gaster, lateral. (36, 37) Oligositoides latipennis, holotype ♀: 36,

antenna; 37, gaster, lateral. (38, 39) Oligositoides fumipennis: 38, antenna, ho1otype ♀;

39, part of pedicel and flagellum, paratype, ♂. (40) Chaetostricha magniclavata, holo-

type ♀, antenna.


Figs. 41–52. (41-45) Paruscanoidea indica, types: 41, phallobase, ♂; 42, genitalia,

dorsal, ♂; 43, antenna, scape omitted, ♀; 44, fore wing, ♀; 45, hind wing , ♀. (46) Neo-

centrobiella terebrator, holotype ♀, pedicel and funicle. (47, 48) Neolathromera latipen-

nis, holotype ♀: 47, clava, drawn from head in a drop of balsam; 48, antenna, drawn from

slide. (49, 50) Zaga angustipennis, holotype ♀: 49, fore wing, basal part; 50, antenna.

(51, 52) Lathromeroidea nigrella Girault, ♀ Yousuf & Shafee det. specimen: 51, fore

wing, basal part; 52, antenna.


Figs. 53–60. (53–55) Westwoodella nephotetticum, holotype ♀: 53, scape and pedi-

cel; 54, flagellum; 55, basal part of fore wing. (56–60) Oligosita nephotetticum, ♀; Fig.

59 from holotype, rest from paratypes: 56, head lateral; 57, antenna; 58, head fronto-

lateral view; 59, fore wing; 60, hind wing.


Figs. 61–70. (61–69). Parahispidophila singularis; Fig. 61 and 62 from holotype ♀;

61, antenna; 62, fore wing; 63, mouth region showing mandible and palps, ♀. Male: Figs.

64–69: 64, pedicel, funicle and first segment of clava; 65, flagellum; 66, scape; 67, geni-

talia, ventral; 68, part of fore wing; 69, apical two terga of gaster, T VI dark brown, T VII

white. (70) Prosoligosita perflexa, male antenna.

Documents

TAXONOMIC NOTES ON THE INDIAN ... Insects, Vol. 42: 1–32, 2008. TAXONOMIC NOTES ON THE INDIAN TRICHOGRAMMATIDAE (HYMENOPTERA : CHALCIDOIDEA), WITH REDESCRIPTIONS AND RECORDS OF SOME