Aphanogmus Thomson 1858
Creators: name: Salden, Tobias
name: Peters, Ralph S.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Ceraphronidae
Aphanogmus

description: Key to male Aphanogmus from the Afrotropical mainland   
 1. Median mesoscutal sulcus absent; basal transverse carina of petiole (on syntergum) present (tenuicornis species group) (Dessart 1963a: 410, fig. 45)................................................................ 2   
 – Median mesoscutal sulcus present; basal transverse carina of petiole (on syntergum) present (fumipennis species group) (e.g., Fig. 20D; Evans et al. 2005: 50, fig. 2; 52, fig. 9)....................... 4   
 – Median mesoscutal sulcus absent; basal transverse carina of petiole (on syntergum) absent (clavicornis species group) (e.g., Fig. 4D; Dessart 1963a: 405, fig. 31)........................................ 24   
2. OOL:POL ≤ 1.11; preoccipital furrow, with small interocellar pit; anteromedian projection of the metanoto-propodeo-metapecto-mesopectal complex present (e.g., Fig. 36D); longest lateral seta more than half as long as harpe (Figs 36, 38A, C)........................................................................... 3  
 – OOL:POL 1.49; preoccipital furrow, without interocellar pit; anteromedian projection of the metanoto-propodeo-metapecto-mesopectal complex absent (Fig. 37D); longest lateral seta less than one quarter as long as harpe (Fig. 37A, C)............................................................ A. kikuyu sp. nov.   
 3. Scape as long as F1 and F2 combined (Fig. 38D); harpes taken together pagoda-shaped in ventral and dorsal view (Fig. 38A, C).............................................................................. A. pagoda sp. nov.   
 – Scape longer than F1 and F2 combined (Fig. 36D); harpes taken together bell-shaped in ventral and dorsal view (Fig. 36A, C)............................................................................... A. campanula sp. nov.   
4. Harpe bilobed [Figs 20, 22–24 (dorsolateral lobe very short), 26–29, 31–32, 34–35, 99; Buffington & Polaszek 2009: 65, fig. 6; Dessart 1971: 97, fig. 13]........................................................................ 5  
– Harpe not bilobed (Figs 21, 25, 30, 33; Dessart 1963a: 394, fig. 12; Polaszek & LaSalle 1995: 139, fig. 24)............................................................................................................................................. 19  
5. Meso- or metapleuron with distinct longitudinal striations (e.g., Fig. 24D).................................... 6  
– Meso- or metapleuron without or with very indistinct longitudinal striations (e.g., Fig. 28D)..... 12  
6. Scape longer than F1 and F3 combined (e.g., Fig. 99D).................................................................. 7  
– Scape shorter than F1 and F3 combined (e.g., Fig. 24D)................................................................. 9  
7. Dorsolateral lobe of harpe not finger-shaped (Buffington & Polaszek 2009: 65, fig. 6; Dessart 1971: 97, figs 13–14).................................................................................................................................. 8  
 – Dorsolateral lobe of harpe finger-shaped (Fig. 99A, C; Dessart 1971: 97, figs 11–12)...................................................................................................................................... A. reticulatus (Fouts, 1934)   
 8. Flagellomeres trapezoidal (Dessart 1971: 96, figs 6, 8); male genitalia as in Dessart (1971: 97, figs 13–14)............................................................................................... A. fijiensis (Ferrière, 1933)   
 – Flagellomeres moniliform (Buffington & Polaszek 2009: 64, fig. 3b); male genitalia as in Buffington & Polaszek (2009: 65, fig. 6)............................................ A. dictynna (Waterston, 1923)   
9. Scape as long as or longer than F1 and F2 combined, F1 ≤ 2.3 × as long as pedicel; OOL:POL ≥ 0.65................................................................................................................................................. 10  
 – Scape shorter than F1 and F2 combined, F1 3.7 × as long as pedicel; OOL:POL ≤ 0.50 (Fig. 34D)....................................................................................................................................... A. taji sp. nov.   
10. Metacoxa light brown or yellowish; scape light brown or light brown-yellowish; mesometapleural sulcus absent....................................................................................................................................11  
 – Metacoxa brown; scape brown; mesometapleural sulcus present (but indistinct) in dorsal third of mesometapleuron (Fig. 31D).................................................................................. A. rafikii sp. nov.   
 11. F1 1.4 × as long as wide (Fig. 32D); dorsolateral lobe of harpe about third as long as ventral lobe (Fig. 32C)............................................................................................................ A. robustus sp. nov.   
 – F1 3.5× as long as wide (Fig. 24D); dorsolateral lobe of harpe very short (Fig. 24C)....................................................................................................................................................... A. kisiwa sp. nov.   
12. Preoccipital furrow, with interocellar pit (e.g., Fig. 22D).............................................................. 13  
– Preoccipital furrow, without interocellar pit................................................................................... 14  
 13. Scape as long as F1 and F2 combined, sensillae on flagellomeres not sickle-shaped (Fig. 23D); median mesoscutal sulcus not adjacent to transscutal articulation...................... A. kakakili sp. nov.   
 – Scape longer than F1 and F2 combined, sensillae on flagellomeres erect and sickle-shaped (Fig. 22D); median mesoscutal sulcus adjacent to transscutal articulation............................ A. guenteri sp. nov.   
14. Metacoxa brown or yellow, not transparent (e.g., Figs 29, 35)...................................................... 15  
– Metacoxa light yellow and transparent (Figs 26–28)..................................................................... 17  
15. Scape light brown-yellowish or yellowish; F1 shorter than F9; F6 at least 1.3× as wide as F9 (Figs 20, 35); Weber length ≤ 1.76 × genital length (Figs 20, 35)................................................................. 16  
 – Scape light brown; F1 as long as F9; F6 as wide as F9 (Fig. 29D); Weber length ≥ 1.96 × genital length (Fig. 29).......................................................................................................... A. nikii sp. nov.   
 16. Harpe/gvc index 0.37; dorsolateral lobe of harpe triangular in lateral view (Fig. 35A–C)............................................................................................................................................... A. ukanda sp. nov.   
 – Harpe/gvc index 0.63; dorsolateral lobe of harpe finger-shaped in lateral view (Fig. 20A–C).................................................................................................................................... A. dimidiatus sp. nov.   
17. Dorsolateral lobe/ventral lobe index ≥ 0.65; dorsolateral length of harpe/harpe index ≥ 0.81 (e.g., Fig. 28A–C).................................................................................................................................... 18  
 – Dorsolateral lobe/ventral lobe index 0.18; dorsolateral length of harpe/harpe index 0.61 (Fig. 27A– C)............................................................................................................................. A. ndefu sp. nov.   
 18. Harpe/gvc index 0.34; dorsolateral lobe of harpe triangular in lateral view (Fig. 28A–C).................................................................................................................................................... A. ngai sp. nov.   
 – Harpe/gvc index 0.47; dorsolateral lobe of harpe finger-shaped in lateral view (Fig. 26A–C)................................................................................................................................... A. morriconei sp. nov.   
19. Harpe/gvc index ≤ 0.77................................................................................................................... 20  
 – Harpe/gvc index 1.23 (Polaszek & LaSalle 1995: 139, fig. 24)............... A. trasides Polaszek, 1995   
20. Scape and pedicel light brown or lighter; scape longer than F1 and F2 combined; F1 shorter than F9; posterior mesosomal comb distinct (e.g., Fig. 30D); harpe/gvc index ≥ 0.68 (e.g., Fig. 30A–C)....21  
 – Scape and pedicel brown; scape as long as F1 and F2 combined; F1 as long as F9; posterior mesosomal comb absent (Fig. 25D); harpe/gvc index 0.77 (Fig. 25A–C).............. A. maua sp. nov.   
21. Head dark brown, mesosoma dark brown, metasoma brown; flagellum brown (e.g., Fig. 33D)... 22  
– Head light brown-amber, mesosoma light brown-amber, metasoma light brown; flagellum light brown (Figs 21, 30)......................................................................................................................... 23  
 22. Dorsomedial margin of harpe concave from base to apex (Fig. 33C); harpe slightly curved in ventral direction (Fig. 33B)................................................................................................ A. simbai sp. nov.   
 – Dorsomedial margin of harpe convex and slightly diverging in basal third, slightly concave and slightly converging in apical two thirds; harpe distinctly curved in ventral direction (Dessart 1963a: 394, figs 12–13; Mikó 2012c)............................................................ A. fumipennis Thomson, 1858   
 23. Dorsomedial margin of harpe convex in apical third with indentation below apex, harpe without median setae on basal two thirds (Fig. 30A, C)................................................ A. pilosicoxa sp. nov.   
 – Dorsomedial margin of harpe concave in apical third without indentation below apex, harpe with distinctly crossing median setae on basal two thirds (Fig. 21A, C)............... A. fraterculus sp. nov.   
 24. Preoccipital furrow present, but not distinct and not widened, with interocellar pit (like in A. clavicornis, Dessart 1963a: 405; Figs 30–31)............................................................................ 25   
 – Preoccipital furrow distinct and widened, with or without interocellar pit (e.g., Fig. 5D; resembling female of A. tenuicornis, Dessart 1963a: 409, fig. 36)................................................................... 26   
 – Preoccipital furrow present, but not distinct and not widened, without interocellar pit (e.g., Fig. 4D; like in A. fumipennis, Dessart 1963a: 394, fig. 9)........................................................................... 28   
 25. Dorsal margin of harpe straight (Fig. 13B)................................................................. A. njia sp. nov.   
 – Dorsal margin of harpe straight in basal third and concave in apical two thirds (Fig. 7B).................................................................................................................................. A. kakamegaensis sp. nov.   
26. Preoccipital furrow, with interocellar pit; ventromedial margin of harpe convex and/or concave in basal three quarters (e.g., Fig. 8A).................................................................................................. 27  
 – Preoccipital furrow, without interocellar pit (Fig. 5D); ventromedial margin of harpe straight and parallel to other harpe in basal three quarters (Fig. 5A)........................... A. ikhongamurwi sp. nov.   
 27. Harpe with plateau on apex in lateral view (Fig. 2B), not finger-shaped apicoventrally in ventral and dorsal view (Fig. 2A, C).................................................................................... A. abaluhya sp. nov.   
 – Harpe without plateau on apex in lateral view (Fig. 8B), finger-shaped apicoventrally in ventral and dorsal view (Fig. 8A, C)................................................................................. A. lateritorum sp. nov.   
28. No or only indistinct pairs of translucent patches on metasomal syntergum and/or synsternum; posterior mesoscutal width ≥ 1.29 × mesoscutellum width............................................................ 29  
 – Distinct pairs of translucent patches on metasomal syntergum and synsternum; posterior mesoscutal width 1.24 × mesoscutellum width (Fig. 4D)........................................................ A. idakho sp. nov.   
29. Metacoxa concolourous with metafemur and -tibia (Figs 3, 6, 9–11, 14–15)................................ 30  
 – Metacoxa lighter than metafemur and -tibia (Fig. 12D)..................................... A. nehbergi sp. nov.   
30. Harpe not rectangular in ventral and dorsal view (Figs 3, 6, 9–10, 14–15); dorsal margin of harpe without protrusion (Figs 3, 6, 9–10, 14–15)................................................................................... 31  
 – Harpe rectangular in ventral and dorsal view (Fig. 11A, C); dorsal margin of harpe at its middle with pointed protrusion (Fig. 11B)........................................................................... A. mashariki sp. nov.   
31. Harpe not triangular apicoventrally in ventral, lateral and dorsal view; longest apical setae of harpe at most one quarter as long as harpe............................................................................................... 32  
 – Harpe triangular apicoventrally in ventral, lateral and dorsal view (Fig. 14A–C); longest apical setae of harpe one third as long as harpe (Fig. 14A–C)................................................... A. vestrii sp. nov.   
32. Ventromedial margin of harpe not convex in basal half, harpes not overlapping and apices of harpes sometimes close, but not touching.................................................................................................. 33  
 – Ventromedial margin of harpe convex in basal half and concave in apical half, with harpes overlapping in basal half and apices of harpes touching (Fig. 15A).............................................. A. yala sp. nov.   
33. Harpe finger-shaped apicoventrally in lateral view; apical margin of harpe not strongly sclerotized......................................................................................................................................................... 34  
 – Harpe not finger-shaped but broadened apicoventrally in lateral view; apical margin of harpe strongly sclerotized (Fig. 6A–C)........................................................................................ A. isiukhu sp. nov.   
34. Fore wing length ≥ 2.63 × width; ventral margin of harpe without emargination at its middle..... 35  
 – Fore wing length ≤ 2.52 × width (Fig. 9D); ventral margin of harpe with distinct emargination at its middle (Fig. 9B).............................................................................................. A. mangimelii sp. nov.   
 35. Mesoscutellum distinctly projecting (Fig. 3D); ventromedial margin of harpe straight in basal two thirds and converging distomedially; longest ventral seta less than one third as long as harpe (Fig. 3A, C)....................................................................................................................... A. ashitakai sp. nov.   
 – Mesoscutellum not projecting (Fig. 10D); ventromedial margin of harpe concave in basal two thirds; longest ventral seta more than half as long as harpe (Fig. 10A, C)....................... A. mariae sp. nov.
description: Published as part of Salden, Tobias & Peters, Ralph S., 2023, Afrotropical Ceraphronoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) put back on the map with the description of 88 new species, pp. 1-386 in European Journal of Taxonomy 884 (1) on pages 11-14, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2023.884.2181, http://zenodo.org/record/8177941