The Wharton Lab

Opius filicornis Fischer, 1963: 387-389. Holotype female in CAS (examined).
Opius filicornis: Fischer 1965: 236 (comparison with O. ingenticornis ); Fischer 1964: 3-12 (key).
Opius filiflagellatus Fischer, 1965: 420, 426 (key, new name); Fischer 1971: 59 (catalog).
Opius (Merotrachys) filiflagellatus: Fischer 1977: 655-656, 673-675 (key, redescription); Fischer 1979: 264-265 (key); Yu et al. 2005, 2012 (electronic catalogs).

This species, known only from the poorly preserved holotype, was originally described as Opius filicornis (Fischer 1963) but the name was preoccupied by Opius filicornis Thomson, 1895. Fischer (1965d) subsequently renamed the species as Opius filiflagellatus. Both antennae are broken on the holotype, with 42 flagellomeres remaining on the longest one. The metasoma is glued to the point separately from the remainder of the specimen, and the ovipositor is broken and its full length is thus unknown. The original description states half as long as metasoma, but it is unclear if this was meant to be the total length or just the visible portion. The right fore wing is missing, as are most of the legs.

Face (Fig. 3) mostly faintly punctate and finely shagreened, more strongly shagreened along eye margin. Eye in lateral view (Fig. 2) 3.0-3.1 x longer than temple; temples in dorsal view very weakly receding (Fig. 4). Female antenna with 50 flagellomeres (original description); setae on basal flagellomeres thick, dark (Fig. 5). Mesoscutum anteriorly on nearly same plane as pronotum (Fig. 2), without distinct anterior declivity; notaulus extending laterally towards tegula as groove bordered by distinct supramarginal carina. Propodeum (Fig. 6) coarsely, carinately rugose, with short median trough anteriorly, areola largely obscured by sculpture posteriorly. Fore wing 3RSa very weakly curved, nearly straight, 1.5 x longer than 2RS; m-cu distinctly antefurcal. T1 sharply declivitous anteriorly (Fig. 7), pit delimited posterior-medially; surface very intensely shagreened throughout and rugulose posterior-medially, the sculpture partly obscuring dorsal carinae; dorsal carinae (Fig. 8) weakly converging, nearly parallel-sided for most of their length. T2 intensely shagreened, T3 more finely shagreened. Ovipositor broken; ovipositor sheath apparently missing (broken). Color as in Figs 1, 4: head, body, hind coxa and femur orange; antenna without pale subapical ring; wing infumate.

This species most closely resembles O. rojam and O. ingenticornis in overall appearance. The color and propodeal sculpture are the same, and O. filiflagellatus similarly has T2+3 distinctly shagreened. However, the setal pattern on the basal flagellomeres would seem to remove O. filiflagellatus from the subgroup of species to which O. rojam and O. ingenticornis belong. The mesoscutum is also not quite as flattened anteriorly and the temples in dorsal view are somewhat weakly receding relative to O. rojam and O. ingenticornis . In existing keys to species of Merotrachys (Fischer 1977, 1979), O. filiflagellatus is distantly removed from O. ingenticornis because of the antefurcal position of fore wing m-cu. This latter character is somewhat unreliable amongst members of the ingenticornis species group given variation we have seen both within series and between wings of single individuals.

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.

Peru, Monson Valley, Tingo Maria.

Labels attached to the holotype are shown in Figs 1-5.

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 Norm Penny and Bob Zuparko (CAS) for loan of the holotype, as well as David Wahl (American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, FL), 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.