Leptochilus (Lionotulus) leleji Fateryga 2019
Creators: name: Fateryga, Alexander V.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Eumenidae
Leptochilus
Leptochilus leleji

description: Leptochilus (Lionotulus) leleji Fateryga, 2019
(Figs 2G–I, 4A–D, 5B, C)
Leptochilus leleji Fateryga in Fateryga & Mokrousov 2019: 417, ♀ (type locality: “ Altai Republic, Kosh-Agach District, 5 km SE Chagan-Uzun, Tydtuyaryk River ” [Russia]; holotype, ♀, ZISP.
Diagnosis. The species belongs to a group of the subgenus Lionotulus with pronotal carina lamellate, metanotum sharply edged posteriorly, hind trochanter rounded posteriorly, and apical lamella of T2 not sclerotized, with small and rounded basal punctures; it can be recognized, among the species occurring in the northeastern part of Central Asia, by a relatively small size, comparatively fine punctation, and a dark body pattern.
Description. Female. Body length (from head to apical margin of T2) 4.5–5 mm; forewing length 4–4.5 mm. Head about 1.1× as wide as long in frontal view. Mandible with four teeth. Labial palpus not modified. Clypeus about 1.3× as wide as long, its apical emargination shallow, about 0.3× as deep as wide, taking about 1/5 of clypeal width, apical teeth triangular, weakly carinate. Distance between lateral ocellus and occipital margin equal to distance between lateral ocellus and eye. Occipital carina not forming angle at lower part of gena. Anterior pronotal carina strongly developed, weakly lamellate, shoulders blunt. Tegula with outer margin rounded posteriorly, shorter than scutellum. Scutellum rather flat. Metanotum slightly raised above scutellum, sharply edged posteriorly. Hind trochanter rounded posteriorly. Propodeum with indistinct dorsal surface only; propodeal concavity with rounded lateral margins; median carina developed at lower third of propodeal concavity. Projection of submarginal carina of propodeum longer than wide, bluntly rounded apically; valvula rounded. Apical lamella of T2 semitransparent, with basal row of very small rounded punctures, interstices not sclerotized. S 2 in lateral view roundly elevated at base, in ventral view with weak longitudinal furrow.
Clypeus densely punctate, interstices reaching one puncture diameter, with microsculpture. Punctures on frons and vertex strongly larger than those on clypeus, interstices usually shorter than one puncture diameter, with distinct microsculpture; gena with somewhat finer punctures than on frons and vertex and similar microsculpture. Dorsal surface of pronotum punctate similarly to vertex; punctures become coarser on scutum and scutellum, interstices reaching one puncture diameter, with microsculpture; punctures forming some longitudinal rows on posterior part of scutum and scutellum. Tegula shining, with microsculpture only. Dorsal mesepisternum and mesepimeron punctate as pronotum or somewhat sparser.Ventral mesepisternum with sparse punctures, interstices reaching several puncture diameters, with microsculpture but shining. Epicnemium shagreened, without punctures. Metanotum with coarse punctures on upper part of posterior side and microsculpture only on lower part. Metapleuron longitudinally rugose. Dorsolateral surface of propodeum dull, with hardly visible shallow punctures and microsculpture. Lateral surface of propodeum longitudinally rugose but with hardly visible sparse punctures, interstices rather dull; sculpture of propodeal concavity similar to that on lateral surface but interstices shining. T1 densely punctate with shallow punctures, interstices reaching two puncture diameters on dorsal surface, dull, with very dense microsculpture. S1 coarsely rugose longitudinally. T2 and S2 with finer and much sparser punctures than on T1, interstices reaching several puncture diameters, with similar microsculpture. Following terga and sterna without distinct punctures, with dull microsculpture only.
Posterior side of mandible with straight pale setae somewhat longer than F1. Clypeus with setae as long as diameter of F1 at distal end. Frons with straight setae somewhat shorter than F1. Scapus and labial palpus with setae as long as diameter of F1 at base. Gena with even shorter setae. Vertex and dorsal surface of mesosoma with straight setae about as long as diameter of scapus at distal end. Ventral surface of mesosoma and whole metasoma with short appressed setae only.
Basal color black. Apical bands of T1 and T2 ivory. Outer margin of tegula ferruginous or brownish-yellow. Legs from distal ends of femora onwards ferruginous. Wings strongly fuscous, particularly on marginal cell; veins dark brown.
Male. Body length (from head to apical margin of T2) 4 mm; forewing length 3.5 mm. Structure resembles that in female except the following: clypeus about 1.15× as wide as long, its apical emargination about 0.6× as deep as wide, taking less than 1/5 of clypeal width; F11 parallel-sided and broadly rounded apically, reaching apical margin of F8; F9 with deep depression housing apex of F11. S7 with most area flattened. Genitalia as in Fig. 2G–I. Digitus short and rounded apically; aedeagus with comparatively small and rounded ventral lobe.
Sculpture similar to that in female but clypeus very dull, without visible punctures, with microsculpture only.
Setae mostly as in female but clypeus covered with dense white appressed setae as long as diameter of F1 at base; labial palpus without long setae.
Coloration mostly as in female but clypeus and anterior surface of scapus whitish-yellow. Ventral side of distal half of flagellum, depression of F9, and entire F10 and F11 ferruginous.
Material examined. HOLOTYPE: ♀, labeled “Республика Алтай, Кош- / Агачский р-н, 5 км ЮВ с. / ЧаганУЗун, р. ТуЯрык / 11.VII.2016, Локтионов, / ПроЩалыкин [Altai Republic, Kosh-Agach District, 5 km SE Chagan-Uzun, Tydtuyaryk River, 11.VII.2016, leg. V. Loktionov, M. Proshchalykin] // N 50° 04,367’ E 088° 25,193’ 1780 m // Leptochilus ♀ / (Lionotulus) sp. / det. A. Fateryga, 2017 // Holotypus ♀ / Leptochilus leleji / Fateryga [red label]” [ZISP]. PARATYPE: same data as holotype, 1 ♀ [CAFK]. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: RUSSIA. Altai Republic: 5 km SE Chagan-Uzun, Tydtuyaryk River valley, 50°04′25″N, 88°25′12″E, 8.VII.2019, 1 ♀, leg. A. Fateryga [CAFK]; ibid., 9.VII.2019, 7 ♀, leg. A. Fateryga [1 ♀ AMNH, 1 ♀ OLML, 5 ♀ CAFK]; ibid., 12.VI.2022, on Sibbaldianthe bifurca, 2 ♀, leg. A. Fateryga [CAFK]; ibid., 18.VI.2022, on Sibbaldianthe bifurca, 1 ♀, 1 ♂, leg. A. Fateryga [CAFK]; ibid., 21.VI.2022, 2 ♀, leg. M. Proshchalykin [CAFK]; “ Mars ”, 50°03′50″N, 88°18′45″E, 25.VI.2022, 1 ♀, leg. A. Fateryga [CAFK]; 5 km NE Kokorya, 49°57′00″N, 89°04′19″E, 26.VI.2022, 1 ♀, leg. A. Fateryga, 1 ♀, leg. M. Proshchalykin [CAFK]. Tyva Republic: vicinity of Kyzyl, 4–8.VI.1989, 1 ♀, leg. D. Logunov [ISEN].
Distribution. Russia: Altai Republic, Tyva Republic (new record).
Remarks. This species was described as somewhat similar to L. alpestris (de Saussure, 1855) (Fateryga & Mokrousov 2019); however, they are not closely related. The male of L. leleji has completely different apex of flagellum and genitalia. F11 of L. alpestris is thin, rather triangular, acutely pointed apically; F9 does not have so deep depression housing apex of F11. The digitus of L. alpestris is long, narrow, and rather pointed apically (Fig. 2J); aedeagus is with long ventral lobe, which is rather pointed apically and highly sclerotized along posterior margin (Fig. 2L).
Field observations. Females of L. leleji were observed in the Altai Mountains (Fig. 5A) feeding at flowers of Sibbaldianthe bifurca (L.) Kurtto & T. Erikss. (Rosaceae), including both freshly opened ones and those from which petals had already felt down (Fig. 5B). Frontal side of the head of these females was found to be covered by pollen of apparently this plant species, suggesting that L. leleji took part in its pollination. Females were also observed licking the surface of an entomological net, both the bag and the handle (Fig. 5C), similarly to the previously observed females and males of L. limbiferus in the Caucasus (Fateryga et al. 2020). The purpose of such a behavior is unclear.
Obviously, L. leleji does not nest in empty snail shells, like several other species of Leptochilus do (Fateryga
2013; Fateryga et al. 2020), because there were no terrestrial snails observed in the habitats of this species.
description: Published as part of Fateryga, Alexander V., 2024, On some new and little-known Palaearctic species of the genus Leptochilus de Saussure, 1853 (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae), pp. 38-53 in Zootaxa 5432 (1) on pages 45-48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5432.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/10898506