Loboscelidia Westwood 1874
Creators: name: Hisasue, Yu
name: Pham, Thai-Hong
name: Mita, Toshiharu
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Chrysididae
Loboscelidia

description: Key to males of Indo-Chinese Loboscelidia
1. M vein absent (Fig. 3B); Rs much less than twice as long as R ....................................................... 2
– M vein complete (Fig. 3A); Rs twice or more longer than R ........................................................... 3
2. Head wider than posterior width of pronotum; hindtibia with well-developed flange ....................... ...................................................................................................................... L. fulgens Kimsey, 2012
– Head narrower than posterior width of pronotum; hindtibia without flange ...................................... .................................................................................................... L. reducta Maa & Yoshimoto, 1961
3. Eye with erect setae (Fig. 6B); fore- and midtibiae without distinct flange (Fig. 6A) ....................... ..................................................................................................................................... L. cilia sp. nov.
– Eye without erect setae; fore- and midtibiae with developed flanges (Figs 9A, 11A) ..................... 4
4. Pronotum and legs always with scale-like setae (Figs 5A, D, 7A, D) .............................................. 5
– Pronotum and legs without scale-like setae (Fig. 24D) .................................................................... 7
5. Lower gena with cuneate setae (Fig. 5A, D) ....................................................... L. convexa sp. nov.
– Lower gena with scale-like setae (Fig. 7A, D) ................................................................................. 6
6. Scape much longer than 3.0 times as long as wide; scrobal sulcus absent ... L. asiana Kimsey, 1988
– Scape nearly 3.0 times as long as wide; scrobal sulcus present (Fig. 7A) ........... L. barbata sp. nov.
7. Cervical expansion strongly flattened in lateral view, not depressed behind ocelli; propodeum with transverse subapical carina ............................................................................................................... 8
– Cervical expansion not flattened at least curved in lateral view (Figs 18D, 24D); propodeum without transverse subapical carina ............................................................................................................... 9
8. Scrobal sulcus absent; foretibia without flange .................................... L. maculipennis Fouts, 1922
– Scrobal sulcus present; foretibia with flange, as wide as tubular part of foretibia ............................. ..................................................................................................................... L. nitidula Kimsey, 2012
9. Frontal projection elongate and nasiform; head nearly 3.0 times as long as wide ............................. ................................................................................................................ L. nasiformis Kimsey, 2012
– Frontal projection not elongate and rectangular to triangular (Fig. 23D); head twice or less as long as broad ........................................................................................................................................... 10
10. Tibiae without flanges (Fig. 10A), if narrow flanges present, it is much less than 0.2 times as wide as tubular part of tibiae ....................................................................................................................11
– Tibiae with more or less developed flanges, more than 0.3 times as wide as tubular part of fore tibia ................................................................................................................................................. 12
11. Temple as long as MOD (Fig. 10B, D); pronotum much longer than wide ....................................... ....................................................................................................................... L. defecta Kieffer, 1916
– Temple much longer than MOD; pronotum as long as or shorter than wide ...................................... ............................................................................................................. L. cinnamonea Kimsey, 2012
12. Scrobal sulcus absent (Fig. 12A) .......................................................................... L. flavipes sp. nov.
– Scrobal sulcus present (Fig. 13A) ................................................................................................... 13
13. Vertex behind ocelli strongly depressed (Figs 6C, 7C, 13C, 21C, 23C); cervical expansion strongly curved (Figs 6D, 7D, 13A, 21D, 23D) ........................................................................................... 14
– Vertex behind ocelli not depressed (Figs 15C, 18B, 24D); cervical expansion weakly curved (Figs 15D, 18A, 24D) ..................................................................................................................... 17
14. Frontal projection rectangular; Rs more than 3.5 times as long as R ...... L. pasohana Kimsey, 1988
– Frontal projection triangular (Fig. 23B–C); Rs less than 3.5 times as long as R ........................... 15
15. Temple longer than MOD (Fig. 23C); scape 3.8 times as long as wide; M straight; cu-a absent ...... .................................................................................................................................... L. vang sp. nov.
– Temple shorter than MOD; scape 2.5 times as long as wide; M curved; cu-a present ................... 16
16. Body reddish brown; Rs 2.5 times as long as R ................................ L. sarawakensis Kimsey, 1988
– Body brownish yellow; Rs 3.0 times as long as R ......................................... L. collaris Fouts, 1922
17. Scape polished, usually without longitudinal grooves (Figs 11A, 16C, 24B); F1 less than or twice as long as wide .................................................................................................................................... 18
– Scape rugose, with longitudinal grooves (Figs 8B, 9A); F1 usually more than twice as long as wide ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
18. F11 4.0 times as long as wide (Fig. 16B) ....................................................................................... 19
– F11 less than 3.5 times as long as wide (Figs 4A, 11A, 24A) ........................................................ 20
19. Scape 3.0 times as long as wide; F2 twice as long as wide; fore- and midtibial flanges as wide as tubular part; hindtibial flange twice as wide as tubular part ........................... L. kafae Kimsey, 2012
– Scape 2.6 times as long as wide; F2 less than twice as long as wide; fore- and midtibial flanges narrower than tubular part (Fig. 16A); hindtibial flange as wide as tubular part (Fig. 16A) ............. ................................................................................................................... L. laminata Kimsey, 2012
20. LOL less than 0.2 times as long as MOD (Fig. 11C); foretibial flange much wider than tubular part (Fig. 11A); hindtibial flange much wider than tubular part of hindfemur ..................... L. do sp. nov.
– LOL more than 0.3 times as long as MOD; foretibial flange less than tubular part (Figs 4A, 24A); hindtibial flange less than tubular part ............................................................................................ 21
21. Temple 0.8 times as long as MOD (Fig. 4C); F1 and F2 much less than twice as long as wide; tooth of hindtarsal claw less than 0.2 times as long as hindtarsal claw ................ L. bachmaensis sp. nov.
– Temple less than 0.3 times as long as MOD (Fig. 24C); F1 and F2 nearly twice as long as wide; tooth of hindtarsal claw longer than 0.4 times as long as hindtarsal claw ............ L. vietnamensis sp. nov.
22. cu-a absent or less than 0.2 times as long as R (Fig. 19E) ............................. L. pecki Kimsey, 2012
– cu-a 0.2–0.6 times as long as R ...................................................................................................... 23
23. Frontal projection triangular ........................................................................................................... 24
– Frontal projection rectangular (Figs 8C, 9D, 15C, 18C) ................................................................ 25
14. Fore- and midfemoral flanges less than tubular part; hindtibial flange as long as tubular part; hindtibial flange 0.6 times as wide as tubular part ...................................... L. scutellata Fouts, 1922
– Fore- and midfemoral flanges as wide as tubular part; hindtibial flange 0.67 times as long as tubular part; hindtibial flange twice as wide as tubular part .................................. L. laotiana Kimsey, 1988
25. M vein straight ................................................................................................ L. fulva Kimsey, 2012
– M vein curved (Fig. 26B) ............................................................................................................... 26
26. Body blackish brown; basal part of cervical expansion constrict (Fig. 15C); median tooth of tarsal claw extending half of tarsal claw (Fig. 25K) ..................................................... L. komedai sp. nov.
– Basal part of cervical expansion subparallel (Figs 8C, 9D, 18C); median tooth of tarsal claw distinctly shorter than half of tarsal claw (Fig. 25E–F, M) ............................................................................. 27
27. Pronotum, propleuron and forefemur with cuneate setae; Cu+M as long as A (Fig. 9F) ................... ............................................................................................................................... L. cuneata sp. nov.
– Pronotum, propleuron and forefemur with normal setae; Cu+M less than A (Figs 8F, 18G) ......... 28
28. Frontal ridge distinct; R1 less than 0.5 times as long as R (Fig. 8F); Rs less than 3.0 times as long as R .............................................................................................................. L. cucphuongensis sp. nov.
– Frontal ridge indistinct; R1 about as long as R (Fig. 18G); Rs more than 3.0 times as long as R .......................................................................................................................... L. parallela sp. nov.
Key to females of world Loboscelidia
1. Ribbon-like setae on gena and frontal projection separated (Fig. 17D); fore wing without A vein; all tibiae without flanges ............................................................................................ L. mediata sp. nov.
– Ribbon-like setae on gena and frontal projection not separated (Figs 14D, 20D, 22D); fore wing with A vein; tibiae with flanges ................................................................................................................ 2
2. Body covered with dense decumbent scale-like setae (Fig. 22A); eye with scale-like setae ............. ........................................................................................................................... L. squamosa sp. nov.
– Body without dense scale-like setae, if the body with scale-like setae, eye without scale-like setae (Figs 14D, 20D) ................................................................................................................................ 3
3. Head pear-shaped in dorsal view (Fig. 20C) .................................................... L. piriformis sp. nov.
– Head diamond or kite-shaped in dorsal view (Fig. 14C) .................................................................. 4
4. Eye with erect setae .......................................................................................................................... 5
– Eye without setae (Fig. 14B) ............................................................................................................ 6
5. Head, dorsal of pronotum, scutum, and mesoscutellum with dense erect or suberect normal setae; behind ocelli strongly depressed; cervical expansion convex ................... L. antennata Fouts, 1922
– Head, dorsal of pronotum, scutum, and mesoscutellum with sparse decumbent or suberect normal or cuneate setae; behind ocelli weakly depressed; cervical expansion flattened ..... L. maai (Lin, 1964)
6. R1 vein 0.3 times as long as R vein; cu-a vein as long as R vein ...................... L. ora Kimsey, 1988
– R1 vein longer than half of R vein; cu-a vein much shorter than R vein (Fig. 13E) ........................ 7
7. F11 0.80 times as long as wide (Fig. 14A); POL longer than MOD; flange of hindtibia as wide as tubular part (Fig. 14A) ............................................................................................ L. glabra sp. nov.
– F11 2.3 times as long as wide; POL shorter than MOD; flange of hindtibia 0.8 times as wide as tubular part .............................................................................................. L. hei Yao, Liu & Xu, 2010
description: Published as part of Hisasue, Yu, Pham, Thai-Hong & Mita, Toshiharu, 2023, Taxonomic revision of the genus Loboscelidia Westwood, 1874 (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae: Loboscelidiinae) from Vietnam, pp. 1-68 in European Journal of Taxonomy 887 (1) on pages 60-63, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2023.887.2203, http://zenodo.org/record/8222523