Epyris afer Magretti 1884
Creators: name: Stein, Paulo R. W.
name: Alencar, Isabel D. C. C.
name: Barbosa, Diego N.
name: Azevedo, Celso O.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2011
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Zygaenidae
Epyris
Epyris afer

description: Epyris afer (Magretti, 1884), comb. rev.
(Figs.1, 4, 7–12, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31–33)
Pristocera afra Magretti 1884: 533 –534, pl. 1 fig. 1, Ƥ 3, lectotype (designated here), Ƥ, examined; Dalla Torre 1898: 561 (catalog); Gordh & Móczár 1990: 133 (catalog).
Epyris afer: Magretti 1897: 319 (part.); Kieffer 1904: 396 (key); Kieffer 1908: 27 (catalog).
Lytepyris afer: Kieffer 1913: 108; Kieffer 1914: 416 –417 (key, redescription); Gordh & Móczár 1990: 133 (catalog).
Disepyris afer: Terayama 2004: 97 –98.
Epyris pilosipes Kieffer 1904: 396, 404–405 (key, description), Ƥ (syntype examined); Kieffer 1908: 28 (catalog); Kieffer 1914: 310, 330, fig. 140 (key, redescription); Kurian 1954: 269 (catalog); Richards 1955: 357, 358 (distribution); Gordh & Móczár 1990: 101 (catalog). Syn. nov.
Epyris analis Kieffer 1905: 111 -112, Ƥ (holotype examined), nom. praeocc., non Cresson 1872: 193. Syn. nov.
Epyris secundus Brues 1906: 143 (new name for E. analis Kieffer 1905: 111 -112); Kieffer 1908: 27 (catalog); Kieffer 1914: 312, 326-327 (key, redescription); Kurian 1954: 270 (catalog); Kurian 1955: 90 (key). Syn. nov.
Epyris rugicollis Cameron 1906: 288, Ƥ (holotype examined); Gordh & Móczár 1990: 127 (catalog). Syn. nov.
Isobrachium rugicolle: Kieffer 1908: 26 (catalog); Kieffer 1914: 368, 369 (key, redescription); Kurian 1954: 273 (catalog). Isobrachium rugicollis: Gordh & Móczár 1990: 127 (catalog).
Epyris plurilineata Turner 1928: 130 –131, Ƥ (holotype examined); Gordh & Móczár 1990: 102 (catalog). Syn. nov. Epyris plurilineatus: Benoit 1957: 14 (distribution, variation); Gordh & Móczár 1990: 102 (catalog).
Type material examined. LECTOTYPE of Pristocera afra (designated here): Ƥ, [ETHIOPIA], Metemma, [13.026817, 36.161562], 24.III.1883, P. Magretti col. (MCSN). PARALECTOTYPES of Pristocera afra: [ETHIO- PIA], 2 Ƥ, Metemma, [13.026817, 36.161562], 24.III.1883, P. Magretti col. (MCSN); 1 3, 22.III.1883 (MCSN). 1 Ƥ, Bahr el Salaam, rive {= river banks}, [13.85, 36.1333333], 14.III.1883, P. Magretti col (MCSN). SYNTYPE of Epyris pilosipes: Ƥ, GHINEA PORTOGHESE {GUINEA-BISSAU}, Bolama, [11.578581, -15.483679], VI– XII.1899, L. Fea col. (MCSN); HOLOTYPE of Epyris plurilineata: Ƥ, S[OUTHERN] RODESIA {ZIMBABWE}, Thabasilitche, {coordinates not found, coordinates of Bulawayo, another occurrence of the species = -20.17, 28.58}, 6.VII.1924, R.H.R. Stevenson col. Brit[ish] Mus[eum] 1927-344, B.M. Type Hym. 13302 (BMNH); HOLOTYPE of Epyris analis: Ƥ, INDES [INDIA], Mahi {=Chennai} [13.083333, 80.283333], Ernest André collection 1914, Muséum Paris EY6341 (MNHN). HOLOTYPE of Isobrachium rugicollis: Ƥ, [PAKISTAN, Balochistan province] Quetta, [30.1872, 67.0125], 6.02.{= VI.1902?}, Nurse col. 1915-34 (BMNH).
Afrotropical material (new). UNI [TED] ARAB EMIRATES, 3 Ƥ, Wadi Wurayah, 25.24N, 56.17E, 12– 14.IV.2005, M[alaise] T[rap] & Y[ellow] P[an] T[rap], T. P[ape] col. (UFES). 2 Ƥ, Sharjah, 25.21N, 55.42E, 27.IV–05.V.2005, light tr[ap], A. v[an] Harten col. (UFES no. 30424, no. 30425). 13 Ƥ, Bithnah, 25.11N, 56.14E, 04.VII–12.VII.2006, M[alaise] T[rap], A. van Harten col. (UFES no. 30483); 2 Ƥ, 12.VIII–09.IX.2006 (UFES no. 30422); 2 Ƥ, 19.X–16.XI.2006 (UFES). 3 Ƥ, Al Ajban, 24.36N, 55.01E, 26.VI–25.VII.2006, M[alaise] T[rap], A. van Harten col. (UFES no. 30423, no. 30593). YEMEN, 1 Ƥ, Se [i] yun, [15.94092, 48.780134], VI.2002, Light trap, A. van Harten & G. Ba Saheh col. (CNCI). 2 Ƥ, Al Lahima, [15.4, 43.5333333], 09.IV–05.VI.2001, M[alaise] T[rap], A. van Harten col. (CNCI). 1 Ƥ Lahj, [13.066666, 44.883333], IX.2000, M[alaise] T[rap], A. van Harten & A. Sallam col. (CNCI); 1 Ƥ, XI.2000 (CNCI); 3 Ƥ, IV–V.2001 (CNCI); 3 Ƥ, 17.V–15.VI.2001 (CNCI); 2 Ƥ, 07.IX.2001 (CNCI); 2 Ƥ, 3.V.2002 (CNCI).
Oriental material (new). [MYANMAR], 1 Ƥ, Bhamò, [24.2667, 97.2333], VIII.1886, L. Fea col. (MCSN). 1 Ƥ, Palon (Pegú), [17.4333, 95.9], VII–IX.1887, L. Fea col (MCSN). THAILAND, 1 Ƥ, Mae Hong Son, Namtok Mae Surin N[ational] P[ark], Walkway top of reservoir, 19°20.893'N, 97°59.005'E, 3–10.II.2008, M[alaise] T[rap], Na-maadkam & M col. T3485 (QSBG). 2 Ƥ, Loei, Phu Ruea N[ational] P[ark], Nern Pitsawong, 17°29.676'N, 101°21.093'E, 1168 m, 19–26.XI.2006, M[alaise] T[rap], Patikhom Tumtip col. T1123 (QSBG). 1 Ƥ, Phu Kradueng N[ational] P[ark], Road to Ta Krong waterfall of Na Noy Forest Unit, 16°48.913'N, 101°47.634'E, 265 m, 14–20.XI.2006, M[alaise] T[rap], Suthin Gong-lasae col. T1073 (QSBG). 1 Ƥ, Ubon Ratchathani, Pha Taem N[ational] P[ark], Don Huay Can, 15°40.016'N, 105°30.502'E, 246 m, 9–15.VI.2007, M[alaise] T[rap], Tongcam & Banlu col. T2208 (QSBG); 2 Ƥ, Saeng Chan Waterfall, 15°31.985'N, 105°35.774'E, 155 m, 12–20.III.2007, M[alaise] T[rap], Porntip Tonsu & Bunlu Sapsiri col. T2146 (QSBG). 1 Ƥ, Chaiyaphum, Pa Hin Ngam N[ational] P[ark], car park at Tung Dok Grajeaw, 15°38.438'N, 101°23.576'E, 780 m, 12–18.VII.2006, M[alaise] T[rap], Kratae Sa-nog & Buakaw Adnafai col. T333 (QSBG); 2 Ƥ, creek at Tung Dok Grajeaw, 15°38.391'N, 101°23.609'E, 750 m, 24–30.VII.2006, M[alaise] T[rap], Kratae Sa-nog & Buakaw Adnafai col. T338 (QSBG); 1 Ƥ, ecotone between mix deciduous and dipterocarp forest, 15°38.132'N, 101°23.922'E, 698 m, 19–25.II.2007, M[alaise] T[rap], Katae Sa-nog & Buakaw Adnafai col. T1652 (QSBG). 1 Ƥ, Kanchanaburi, Khuean Srinagarindra N[ational] P[ark], Tourist center, 14°38.136'N, 98°59.837'E, 210 m, 11–18.VII.2008, M[alaise] T[rap], Somboon & Chatchawan col. T3432 (QSBG). 1 Ƥ, Nakhon Nayok, Khao Yai N[ational] P[ark], Nhong ping khaokeaw, 14°23.094'N, 101°23.055'E, 733 m, 12–19.III.2007, M[alaise] T[rap], Wirat Sukho col. T2104 (QSBG); 1 Ƥ, 26.III–2.IV.2007, Pong Sandao col. T2109 (QSBG). 1 Ƥ, Chanthaburi, Khao Khitchakut N[ational] P[ark], 100 m N/Prabaht Unit, 12°48.842'N, 102°9.144'E, 203 m, 7–14.VII.2008, M[alaise] T[rap], Suthida & Charoenchai col. T2973 (QSBG). 5 Ƥ, Prachuab Khiri Khan, Khao Sam Roi Yot N[ational] P[ark], Saline wetland/Pa Gwad/N, 12°9.2'N, 99°58.298'E, 22–29.III.2009, M[alaise] T[rap], Yai & Amnad col. T4219 (QSBG); 2 Ƥ, Saline wetland/ Pa Gwad/S, 12°9.173'N, 99°58.244'E, T4221 (QSBG); 2 Ƥ, Nursery, 12°7.58'N, 99°57.478'E, 29.VI–6.VII.2008, M[alaise] T[rap], Amnad & Yai col. T3049 (QSBG); 1 Ƥ, 30.VI–1.VII.2008, Pan trap, T3031 (QSBG); VIET- NAM, 1 Ƥ, Dak Lak, Chu Yang Sin N[ational] P[ark], n[ea]r dam, [12.46277, 108.409464], c. 500 m, 3–9.VI.2007, M[alaise] T[rap], C. v. Achterberg & R. de Vries col. RMNH’07 (RMNH). 1 Ƥ, Ninh Thuân, Núi Chiúa N[ational] P[ark], northeast part, [11.715754, 109.138353], M[alaise] T[rap], 90–150 m, 23–30.V.2007, C. v. Achterberg & R.
de Vries col. RMNH’07 (RMNH). 1 Ƥ, Dông Nai, Cát Tiên N[ational] P[ark], Bot[anical] garden, [11.470501, 107.259089], c. 100 m, 13–20.V.2005, M[alaise] T[rap] 14-19, C. v. Achterberg & R. de Vries col. RMNH’05 (RMNH). 2 Ƥ, Cát Tiên N[ational] P[ark], Dong trail, [11.470501, 107.259089], c. 100 m, 9.IV–19.V.2007, M[alaise] T[rap], M. P. Quy, N. T. Manh & C. v. Achterberg col. RMNH’07 (RMNH). 1 Ƥ, Cát Tiên N[ational] P[ark], Ficus trail, [11.470501, 107.259089], c. 100 m, 9–30.IV.2007, M[alaise] T[rap], M. P. Quy & N. T. Manh col. RMNH’07 (RMNH).
Type condition. The lectotype and the three female paralectotypes are in good condition. However the only paralectotype male is broken in several parts, but none is missing.
Distribution. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, India, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe. It is recorded for the first time from Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and Yemen.
Diagnosis. FEMALE. Mandible with pre-apical lower tooth, sensillae chaetica in lower margin of mandible present. Apex of clypeus with long setae. Head as wide as long. Space between inner and second pair of propodeal discal carina with a structure resembling a fovea. Metatibia with dense series of short setae in posterior face. Metasoma dark castaneous nearly black with apex orange.
Redescription. LECTOTYPE. Body length 7.5 mm. LFW 3.8 mm.
Color. Head, mesosoma and procoxa dark castaneous nearly black. Metasoma dark castaneous nearly black with apex orange. Meso and metacoxae and femora dark castaneous. Scape, pedicel, flagellum, mandible, tegula, wing venation, trochanters and tibiae castaneous. Palpi light castaneous. Wings subhyaline.
Head (Fig. 1). Mandible (Figs. 7–9) apex as wide as base, with five rounded apical teeth, two lower wider than others, pre-apical lower tooth present; sensillae chaetica in lower margin of mandible present. Clypeus shorter than wide, median lobe angulate; median carina present; apex of clypeus with long setae; lateral lobe reduced. Transversal section of scape cylindrical; first four antennal segments ratio 23:7:7:9, segment III as long as thick; antennal sensillae not visible. Antennal scrobe projected forward, dorsally sulcate. Toruli distant from each other 1.7 × their diameter. Eye almost reaching upper mandibular condyle, prominent, glabrous. Frons coriaceous; punctures small and shallow, separated from each other by 1.5 × their diameter. WH 1.0 × LH; WF 1.3 × HE; WF 0.6 × WH; OOL 1.7 × WOT; VOL 0.6 × HE; distance of posterior ocellus to vertex crest 1.0 × DAO. Ocelli small, frontal angle of ocellar triangle acute. Temple parallel in dorsal view. Vertex almost straight in dorsal view, with soft callosity medially. Crest with continuous series of short setae. Occipital carina present dorsally and ventrally. Gena flattened. Hypostomal carina straight and polished.
Mesosoma (Fig. 19). Pronotal collar polished, with transversal groove. Pronotal disc 0.9 × longer than wide, coriaceous, subtrapezoidal, sparsely punctate, transversal carina in anterior margin absent. Mesoscutum coriaceous, lateral slightly elevate posteriorly. Notaulus touching posterior margin of mesoscutum, convergent posteriorly, gradual anteroposterior enlargement. Parapsidal furrow parallel, shorter and as deep as notaulus, not reaching posterior margin of mesoscutum. Scutellum coriaceous, scutellar groove absent, scutellar pit oval. Propodeal disc 0.9 × as long as wide; anterior carina medially narrower than laterally; anterior corner fovea-shaped; five discal carinae present, median carina complete, inner discal carina complete, space between median and inner discal carina with longitudinal ridge, second pair of discal carina incomplete and short, space between inner and second pair of discal carina with structure resembling fovea; lateral margin straight; sublateral carina absent, lateral carina present, space between sublateral and lateral carina with series of transversal ridges; posterior margin somewhat concave; posterior corner with suboval fovea; lateral of propodeum strigate; declivity of propodeum strigate, with median carina. Mesopleuron (Fig. 20) coriaceous; subtegular groove elongate, large anteriorly and narrow posteriorly; anterior fovea closed; sub-anterior fovea closed and small; mesopleural fovea closed; mesopleural pit present; mesopleural elevation present; lower fovea open, groove of inferior margin of lower fovea present throughout extension of margin; episternal furrow with inner margin striate. Epicnemium lateromedially enlarged, with medial constriction. Pleurosternum with straight longitudinal groove.
Legs. Profemur 2.4 × longer than wide. Mesotibia spinose. Metatibia with dense series of short setae in posterior face. Tarsomeres distally spinose, spines of protarsus short and cylindrical, spines of meso and metatarsi long and flattened. Tarsal claws bidentate, inner tooth as long as apical tooth.
Wing. Forewing with metacarpus present, 0.2 × as long as stigma length; radial vein curved forward, 2.6 × longer than basal; basal vein truncate; transverse median vein convex. Hind wing with two basal and four apical hamuli.
Metasoma. Ventral surface of petiole (Fig. 27) unsegmented, space between carinae of petiole wide. Tergum II longer than others; terga III–VI with line of transverse setae on dorsal surface.
Variation. Hind wing with three basal and five apical hamuli.
Diagnosis. MALE. Posterior ocellus distant from vertex crest 0.3 × DAO. Mesoscutum and scutellum polished. Mesotibia without spines. Protarsomeres without spines. Hind wing with five medial hamuli. Paramere strongly arched ventrad, narrow and almost 3.0 × longer than basiparamere. Aedeagus inner margin slightly expanded subapically. Apodeme base projected laterally, not dilated.
Redescription. PARALECTOTYPE. Body length 4.0 mm. LFW 2.2 mm.
Color. Head, mesosoma and coxae dark castaneous nearly black. Metasoma dark castaneous nearly black with apex castaneous. Wing venation, trochanters and femora dark castaneous. Scape, pedicel, flagellum, mandible, tegula and tibiae castaneous. Palpi and tarsi light castaneous. Wings subhyaline.
Head (Fig. 4). Mandible (Figs. 10–12) apex as wide as base, with five rounded apical teeth, two lower wider than others, pre-apical lower tooth present; sensillae chaetica in lower margin of mandible present. Clypeus shorter than wide, median lobe angulate; median carina present; apex of clypeus with long setae; lateral lobe reduced. Transversal section of scape elliptical; first four antennal segments ratio 18:5:4:7, segment III 0.6 × longer than thick; antennal sensillae visible in ventral surface of antenna. Antennal scrobe projected forward, not dorsally carinate. Toruli distant from each other 1.5 × their diameter. Eye almost reaching upper mandibular condyle, prominent, glabrous. Frons coriaceous; punctures small and shallow, separated from each other by 3.0 × their diameter. WH 0.9 × LH; WF 1.5 × HE; WF 0.7 × WH; OOL 1.9 × WOT; VOL 1.0 × HE; distance of posterior ocellus to vertex crest 0.3 × DAO. Ocelli small, frontal angle of ocellar triangle acute. Temple parallel in dorsal view. Vertex straight in dorsal view. Crest without setae. Occipital carina present dorsally and ventrally. Gena flattened. Hypostomal carina straight and polished.
Mesosoma (Fig. 23). Pronotal collar polished, without transversal groove. Pronotal disc 0.6 × longer than wide, coriaceous, trapezoidal, sparsely punctate, transversal carina in anterior margin present. Mesoscutum polished, lateral slightly elevate posteriorly. Notaulus touching posterior margin of mesoscutum, convergent posteriorly, gradual anteroposterior enlargement. Parapsidal furrow convergent posteriorly, shorter and as deep as notaulus, not reaching posterior margin of mesoscutum. Scutellum polished, scutellar groove absent, scutellar pit circular. Propodeal disc 0.5 × as long as wide; anterior carina medially narrower than laterally; anterior corner groove-shaped; five discal carinae present, median carina complete, inner discal carina incomplete, space between median and inner discal carina without sculpture, second pair of discal carina complete, space between inner and second pair of discal carina without ridge; lateral margin sinuous; sublateral carina present and weak, lateral carina present, space between sublateral and lateral carina with series of transversal ridges; posterior margin somewhat concave; posterior corner with suboval fovea; lateral of propodeum strigate; declivity of propodeum areolate, with median carina. Mesopleuron (Fig. 24) coriaceous; subtegular groove elongate, large anteriorly and narrow posteriorly; anterior fovea closed and large; sub-anterior fovea closed and large; mesopleural fovea open; mesopleural pit present; mesopleural elevation present; lower fovea open, groove of inferior margin of lower fovea present only in anterior portion of margin; episternal furrow with inner margin striate. Epicnemium lateromedially enlarged. Pleurosternum with lozenge-shaped longitudinal groove.
Legs. Profemur 2.8 × longer than wide. Mesotibia without spines. Metatibia with sparse series of short setae in posterior face. Protarsomeres without spines. Meso and metatarsomeres distally spinose, spines long and flattened. Tarsal claws bidentate, inner tooth as long as apical tooth.
Wing. Forewing with metacarpus present, 0.7 × as long as stigma length; radial vein curved forward, 3.0 × longer than basal; basal vein slightly concave; transverse median vein convex. Hind wing with five medial hamuli.
Metasoma. Ventral surface of petiole (Fig. 29) unsegmented, space between carinae of petiole narrow. Tergum II as long as others; terga III–VI with sparse setae on dorsal surface.
Genitalia (Figs 31–33). Paramere positioned dorsally, arched strongly ventrad, narrow, very elongate, almost 3.0 × longer than basiparamere, apical margin convex, membranous expansion large and stout; cuspis elongate, its apex surpassing apical half of paramere length, divided into two arms only at apex, its ventral base with rounded projection, ventral arm slightly longer and narrower than dorsal arm; digitus with apical margin denticulate, its apex not reaching cuspis apex; aedeagus bottle-shaped, short, its apex not reaching cuspis length, apex with concavity inside, inner margin slightly expanded subapically; inner lobe membranous; apodeme not extending beyond genital ring, base projected lateral and not dilated.
Discussion. This species does not belong to Disepyris because the scutellar pits are not connected by any groove, the setae of the protarsomeres are not stout, the eyes are not large, and the stigma is not large. Besides, it has the pronotal disc ecarinate, wider posteriorly and the anterior corners not acutely angled, the mesoscutum has notauli and the antennae are not spinose. This combination of characteristics corresponds to Epyris and because of that we revalidated the combination to Epyris as proposed by Magretti (1897).
The lectotype designation was necessary because there were three different species in the type series. The specimen selected represents Magretti’s original idea for the name of E. afer.
Three species are considered junior subjective synonyms of E. afer, namely E. pilosipes, E. plurilineatus and E. analis (= secundus) because they have the mandible with five rounded apical teeth, the two lower ones wider than the upper ones; the presence of long setae in the apex of median clypeal lobe; the presence of occipital carina ventrally, and the propodeal anterior corner foveolate.
Another species, Isobrachium rugicollis is also considered as junior subjective synonym of E. afer. It was described in Epyris by Cameron (1906) based on one single female. However Kieffer (1908) transferred it to Isobrachium Förster, 1856, although he did not explain the reason for this nomenclatural act. Isobrachium has as main diagnostic character the lack of notauli, which is absent in this species, according to the original description. Cameron’s description may have led Kieffer to propose the transference to Isobrachium. However, our observations showed the presence of notauli in the holotype, so, the inclusion of this species in Isobrachium became unjustified and we revalidate the name established by Cameron (1906) and propose it as an Epyris species. Nevertheless, when we transferred the species to Epyris, we realized that it is too similar to E. afer exactly by same reasons explained above to E. pilosipes, E. secundus and E. plurilineatus. Thus we considered it as a junior subjective synonym of E. afer.
Epyris afer has sexual dimorphism. The main differences between both sexes are: the females have VOL 0.6 × HE, the distance of posterior ocellus to vertex crest 1.0 × DAO, the scutellar pits oval, the propodeal disc 0.9 × as long as wide with anterior corner foveolate, the mesotibiae spinose and the forewings with metacarpus 0.2 × as long as stigma length, whereas the male has VOL 1.0 × HE, the distance of posterior ocellus to vertex crest 0.3 × DAO, the scutellar pits circular, the propodeal disc 0.5 × as long as wide with anterior corner groove-shaped, the mesotibiae without spines, the forewing with metacarpus 0.7 × as long as stigma length.
The females of Epyris afer are similar to E. hirtipennis Cameron,1909 because both species have the mandible with five rounded apical teeth, the two lower ones wider than the upper ones, the pre-apical lower tooth present and the sensillae chaetica in lower margin, the distance of posterior ocellus to vertex crest 1.0 × DAO, the propodeal disc 0.9 × as long as wide and the protarsomeres with spines short and cylindrical. However, E. afer has the scutellar pits oval, the space between inner and second pair of propodeal discal carina with a structure resembling a fovea and the pleurosternum with straight longitudinal groove, whereas E. hirtipennis has the scutellar pits circular, the space between inner and second pair of propodeal discal carina without fovea-like structure, and the pleurosternum with elliptical groove.
On the other hand, the male of Epyris afer is similar to E. penatii sp. nov. because both species have the scutellar pits circular, the propodeal disc ranging 0.5–0.6 × as long as wide, the anterior fovea of mesopleuron closed and large and the parameres positioned dorsally and elongate. However, E. afer has mandibular pre-apical lower tooth and the sensillae chaetica present, the eyes glabrous, VOL 1.0 × HE, the protarsomeres without spines and the inner lobe of aedeagus without setae, whereas E. penatii sp. nov. has the mandibular pre-apical lower tooth and the sensillae chaetica absent, the eyes weakly pilose, VOL 0.5 × HE, the protarsomeres distally spinose and the inner lobe of aedeagus setose.
Epyris afer was previously known from Israel, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Pakistan and Myanmar based on observations of 26 specimens (Fig. 37, red circles). The large gap among these sites suggests that this species has a broad distribution in several sites through Afrotropical and Oriental regions, and even through Mediterranean region since it occurs in Israel. We have searched for more specimens within the material from regions where collection have been recently carried out, namely Yemen and UAE (projects coordinated by A. van Harten), Madagascar (project coordinated by B. Fisher), Thailand (project coordinated by M. Sharkey) and SE Asia (project coordinated by C. van K. Achterberg). We were able to find 71 specimens from Yemen, UAE, Thailand and Vietnam (Fig. 37, blue squares). This confirms that this species is widely distributed throughout the Afrotropical and Oriental regions. However we were not able to find E. afer among the 2102 specimens of Epyris identified by Mugrabi and Azevedo (2010) from Madagascar. Also, there were not any specimens within material from Indonesia and Malaysia.
description: Published as part of Stein, Paulo R. W., Alencar, Isabel D. C. C., Barbosa, Diego N. & Azevedo, Celso O., 2011, Revision of Epyris afer (Magretti, 1884), comb. rev. (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) with new synonymy and description of two new species, pp. 17-32 in Zootaxa 3032 on pages 18-22, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.204624