Opius curiosicornis Fischer

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Opius curiosicornis Fischer, 1965: 224–228. Holotype female in AEIC (examined).
Opius curiosicornis: Fischer 1965: 420 (key); Fischer 1971: 59 (catalog).
Opius (Merotrachys) curiosicornis: Fischer 1977: 655–657, 668–670 (key, redescription); Fischer 1979: 264–266 (key); Yu et al. 2005, 2012 (electronic catalogs).
As of 2013, known only from the female holotype.
Diagnosis and Relationships
Face (Fig. 2) faintly punctate, nearly smooth, polished throughout. Eye in lateral view (Fig. 3) 2.0–2.5 x longer than temple; temples in dorsal view weakly receding. Female antenna with 49 flagellomeres; setae on basal flagellomeres (Fig. 3) thick, dark. Mesoscutum anteriorly with shallow but distinct declivity (Fig. 3); notaulus (Fig. 5) weakly curving laterally towards tegula, supramarginal carina weak, barely distinguishable. Propodeum (Fig. 7) weakly shagreened, largely smooth, with deep median, carinately margined trough divided by transverse carina into shorter anterior trough and longer, roughly rectangular posterior areola. Fore wing (Fig. 11) with 3RSa straight, 1.5–1.6 x longer than 2RS; m-cu interstitial. T1 (Fig. 8) sharply declivitous anteriorly, pit delimited posterior-medially; surface weakly shagreened, mostly smooth; dorsal carinae (Fig. 9) parallel-sided for most of their length, abruptly converging near posterior margin, not sinuate, not transversely carinate between dorsal carinae. T2 mostly weakly shagreened, smoother laterally, T3 faintly shagreened to smooth, especially laterally. Ovipositor short; ovipositor sheath 0.4 x length of mesosoma. Color as in Fig. 1: head, body, hind coxa and femur light orange; antenna without pale subapical ring; wing darkly infumate (Fig. 5).

The propodeal sculpture (Fig. 7) is similar to that of O. bicarinifer and both species have the same color pattern, but the shape of T1 and the pronope in O. curiosicornis are more typical of members of the ingenticornis species group. T1 is weakly excavated near the posterior margin between the dorsal and lateral carinae, resulting in a pattern (Fig. 9) that is nearly identical to that found in O. bicarinifer Fischer. The temples in dorsal view are noticeably receding in O. bicarinifer relative to O. curiosicornis, and this is another feature supporting separation of O. bicarinifer from members of the ingenticornis species group.

Additionally, as in all other members of the ingenticornis species group, this species can be further characterized as follows: Mandible short, broadly triangular, dorsal margin strongly angled ventrally, broadly exposing labrum. Clypeus shaped as a broad crescent, nearly hemispherical, flat to weakly protruding ventrally, ventral margin shallowly concave, rarely appearing truncate. Malar sulcus distinct, complete. Antenna unusually long, approximately twice longer than body; first flagellomere slender, longer than second, with long, narrow plate sensilla. Occipital carina broadly absent dorsally, the gap in dorsal view at least as wide as distance between eyes; carina well developed laterally and ventrally, widely separated from hypostomal carina ventrally. Pronope deep, wide, posterior margin at least weakly overlapping base of mesoscutum, thus obliterating posterior transverse sulcus medially; vertical carina absent on pronotum laterally. Mesoscutum without midpit; notaulus short, curved, pit-like anteriorly, narrowing and evanescent posteriorly. Propodeum with median depression at least anteriorly, never with median longitudinal carina. Mesopleuron without sternaulus, precoxal sulcus unsculptured, absent or very faintly indicated; hind margin of mesopleuron not obviously crenulate on dorsal 0.5. Fore wing 2CUb arising from or near middle of first subdiscal cell. Hind wing with RS distinctly infumate; m-cu absent. T1 with dorsal carinae parallel or nearly so, extending from base to apex; laterope large, deep; dorsope absent.

1. O. curiosicornis holotype habitus...
2.O. curiosicornis holotype face
3. O. curiosicornis holotype head la...
4. O. curiosicornis holotype head do...
5. O. curiosicornis holotype mesoscu...
6. O. curiosicornis holotype mesosom...
7. O. curiosicornis holotype propode...
8. O. curiosicornis holotype T1 late...
9. O. curiosicornis holotype T1 dors...
10.O. curiosicornis holotype T2+3
11. O. curiosicornis holotype wings...
Peru, Avispas, near Marcapata
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.

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

Label data
The labels attached to the holotype are shown in Figs 1-4.
Second label is purple and bears the word holotype. Third label is a white Opius curiosicornis holotype label. Fourth label is a yellow institutional label: Type No. 443
1.Holotype data label
2.Holotype label, left half
3.Holotype label, right half
4.Institutional label
This page was assembled largely by Bob Wharton. It is part of a revision of the Opius ingenticornis species group conducted by Sophia Daniels, Xanthe Shirley, Danielle Restuccia and Bob Wharton, published by Wharton et al. (2013). We thank David Wahl (American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, FL) for loans and general assistance associated with examination of holotypes, as well as Max Fischer and Dominique Zimmermann (NHMW), Henri Goulet (CNC) and Paul Marsh (formerly USDA, Washington, D. C.) for facilitating other loans and work with material in their care. We are also sincerely grateful to Jim Woolley and Aaron Tarone for making available their imaging systems when ours crashed. Matt Yoder provided guidance on databasing issues associated with our use of mx. This work was conducted at Texas A&M University and was supported in part by NSF DEB 0949027, with REU supplement 1213790. Page last updated May, 2013.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0949027 and associated REU supplement 1213790.
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.