Lophyroplectus Thomson, 1883

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Lophyroplectus Thomson, 1883: 915. Type species: Paniscus oblongopunctatus Hartig, 1838. Monobasic.

Thomson (1883)

described Lophyroplectus as a subgenus of Perilissus. Dalla (1901: 377) appears to be the first to have elevated Lophyroplectus to generic rank.

Three valid species were known as of 1995:

Lophyroplectus nipponensis Cushman, 1937
Lophyroplectus oblongopunctatus (Hartig, 1838)
Lophyroplectus chinensis He and Chen, 1995.

luteator Thunberg, 1824 is a synonym of oblongopunctatus, but is unavailable because it was originally described in the genus Ichneumon and is a junior, primary homonym of Ichneumon luteator Fabricius, 1798.

The above description is based on a male and female specimen of the type species.

Diagnosis and Relationships
Lophyroplectus is readily identified by the presence of a linear sclerite in the discocubital cell (= discosubmarginal of Gauld 1997) of the fore wing, as figured below. There is also an associated bare patch on the wing membrane posterior to the anterior portion of the stigma, essentially covering much of the area between the sclerite and the stigma. The lack of pectination on the tarsal claws is also an unusual feature, as is the partially membranous ovipositor sheath. A relationship to Absyrtus is suggested by the weakly angled 2-1A forming the ventral border of the first subdiscal cell of the fore wing.
1.fore wing
Clypeus (Fig. 3) with ventral margin blunt but relatively thin, not thickened medially; ventral margin convex; epistomal sulcus absent or nearly so, clypeus flat, not protruding in profile. Malar space indistinct, essentially absent. Mandible with dorsal tooth very slightly longer and broader than ventral tooth. Ocelli moderately large, lateral ocellus longer than distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palp about equal to head height; female antennae a little shorter than body; first flagellomere with discrete tyloid containing fewer than 15 sensilla. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina distant from margin. Notaulus varying from indistinct (broadly and shallowly impressed) to narrow and discrete; always short, largely confined to anterior declivity, not extending posterior to level of tegula. Deep u- to v-shaped groove present between propodeum and metanotum in lateral view; pleural carina complete, well-developed; propodeal carinae well-developed, complete, with broad, hexagonal areola. Apical margin of mid tibia rounded, not distinctly projecting as a tooth similar to that on fore tibia; apical comb on hind tibia not well developed, row of setae present but these widely spaced, not dense; posterior hind tibial spur at least 7x longer than maximum width at base; tarsal claws simple (not pectinate). Fore wing (Fig. 4) with areolet present; Rs+2r arising near middle of stigma in male but closer to basal 0.3 in female; discocubital cell with a linear sclerite posteriorad stigma (Fig. 5). Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 very slightly shorter than 1cu-a. T1 long, slender basally, broadening posteriorly, dorsal carinae absent basally, present as rounded ridges posteriorad spiracle; basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment absent or nearly so; dorsal-lateral carina extending from spiracle to apex of T1 varying from weak to distinct; glymmae on each side meeting on the midline posterior to dorsal tendon attachment, deep, separated at midline by translucent partition. T2 thyridium present; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor sheath short, nearly round, largely desclerotized except along dorsal margin in the one example available for study (ovipositor not visible). Male parameres moderately long, somewhat rectangular, truncate distally; weakly narrowing distally but not attenuate; aedeagus rounded and clubbed distally.
1. Lophyroplectus oblongopunctatus...
2. Lophyroplect...
3. Lophyroplectus oblongopu...
4. Lophyroplectus oblongopunctatus ...
5. Lophyroplectus oblongopunctat...
Known species are from Europe, Japan, and China; the European species was introduced to Canada and northeastern U. S. on several occasions and appears to have become established at least in Ontario (Carlson 1979).
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
Both Lophyroplectus nipponensis and L. oblongopunctatus have been reared from diprionid sawflies, based on host information provided in the original descriptions. L. oblongopunctatus was introduced to northeastern North American as part of a biological control program directed primarily against Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy). Griffiths (1975) published on the biology of this species in association with this biological control program.

There are no specimens currently determined for this OTU, or those specimens determined for this OTU are not yet mappable.

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a larger collaborative effort on the genera of Ctenopelmatinae. This work would not have been possible without the groundwork provided by Ian Gauld’s study of the Australian and Costa Rican faunas, and we are particularly grateful for his assistance in many aspects of this study. We also thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study, Andy Bennett for specimens of this genus from the Canadian National Collection, and to Gavin Broad for exchange of information on Perilissini. Matt Yoder provided considerable assistance with databasing issues, and our use of PURLs (http://purl.oclc.org) in this regard follows the example of their use in publications by Norm Johnson. Andrea Walker graciously assisted with image capture, processing, and formatting. This study was supported by the National Science Foundation’s PEET program under Grant No. DEB 0328922 and associated REU supplement no DEB 1026618. Page last updated April, 2015.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplement DEB 1026618. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.