S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 47/1-2. (Budapest, 1986)

head very densely and rather deeply punctured, interspaces very narrow and shagreened, weakly shining; eye very convex, nearly as broad as long (6:7), separated from mandible by hardly shorter distance than the breadth of an eye (6:5); anterior margin of clypeus semicircularly protruding and raised longitudinally into a sharp high keel medially; antenna long and slender, all joints distinctly longer than their breadth, scape broadened apically, pedicellus medially, joints 3-5 slightly narrower basally and broadened apically, 6-13 with parallel sides, 3 hardly shorter than 1, but remarkably longer than 2, 4 and further joints longer than 2, length (and breadth) proportions of antenna! joints 1-13 = 8(3): 5(2.5): 7(2): 6(2): 6(2): 6(2): 6(2): 6(2): 6(1.5): 5.5(1.5): 5.5a.

5): 5.5(1.5): 5.5(1). Pronotum hardly longer than two-thirds of its breadth (12:10, allotype), anterior corners rectangular, sides slightly concave and diverging backwards, posterior margin slightly emarginated, longitudinal furrow rather broad and deep, surface shagreeneo, -ather densely and deeply punctured, intespaces usually narrower than punctures, punctures only anteriorly smaller and shallower (allotype). Mesonotum, scutellum weakly shining, shagreened, parapsidal furrow only slightly notaulices well developed, longitudinal furrow present over its whole length and rather deep in second half, not interrupted. Mesonotum separated from scutellum by a deep transversal groove and by a pair of deep pits beside scutellum. Scutellum with some fine punctures posterio-laterally. Propodeum distinctly longer than half breadth transversally (11:9.5), lateral sides hardly convex medially, lateral spine one-third as long as length of propodeum (3.5 allotype), all carinae and areas distinct. Mesepisternum with a deep diagonal furrow. Abdominal tergite 1 polished with some very fine punctures medially on disc, 2 basally, narrowly alutaceous-shagreened and with distinctly (allotype) partly scattered punctures medially, polished and unpunctured posteriorly, tergites 3-6 broadly alutaceous-shagreened. Sternite 2 with scattered and distinct punctures. Genitalia: fig. 1 and abdominal sternite 9: fig. 2. The further 15 paratypes display still more morphological differences. E.g. longitudinal furrow of mesonotum sometimes shallower, punctures of pronotum at places not so dense, interspaces rarely nearly as broad as punctures (sspecially along posterior margin), scutellum rarely with shallow longitudinal sulcus, lateral margins of propodeal disc more or less convex, propodeal spine shorter or longer, namely propodeum 2.6-3.3.7 times longer than spine, notwithstanding genitalia (fig. 1) and sternite 9 (fig. 2) of these specimens are the same also in detail. This variability may be a consequence of the fact, that a large number of the specimens (allotype and 14 paratypes <? ) was captured in the same population (Godavari, July and August 1967). On the other hand, the identity of the females and males is based of the same locality and date of the holotype ( £ ) and the 4 paratypes ( S ) (Godavari 21 July 1967), respectively of the 1 <j> and 1 6* paratypes (Godavari 23-26 July 1967), as well as of the 1 o and 4 S paratypes (Godavari 1-3 August 1967). Over the above 16 male paratypes (including allotype) a further 16 males were listed, among the "specimens examined", which were not designated as paratypes, notwithstanding they partly had been captured in the same locality and time, probably in the same population (Godavari 14, 20-21 July 1967). These specimens seem to represent a new spe'cies at first sight, apparently related (except antenna) more so to Heterocoelia tsuneki Móczár, 1971 (occurs in Middle Africa), H. ni- kolskaj

ae Móczár, 1984b (captured in Tadzikskaja S.S.R.) and especially seems to be close to Sul comesitius erdoesi Móczár, 1970 (published from South Africa), but differs also from nepalensis sp.n. <? mainly by its smaller size: only 2.5-3 mm, by the conspicuously shorter propodeal spine, by the partly fine punctures of tergite 2, by the very short or often hardly visible longitudinal sulcus of mesonotum, by the pronotum with partly scattered and shallower punctures, where interspaces often nearly as large as punctures, by the more convex lateral margins of propodeal disc, etc. Among the characters listed before there is not a single one, on the basis of which one could separate satisfactorily these specimens from S. nepalensis sp. n. * without a transitional form. And what is more, e.g. the lateral margin of propodeal disc on three specimens (all originating from the same population Godavari 2. July 1967) is different: slightly convex before spine, straight and on the third specimen: left margin being slightly convex, right margin straight; or an other character, e.g. the lateral spine nearly indistinct, sometimes the lateral corner nearly rectangular or smaller and shorter than one-fourth of the length of propodeum or nearly one-third of propodeum similarly to the allotype of nepalensis sp.n. Ó* . Besidess these one may find tergite 2 with fine or with distinct punctures. Although the genitalia of these specimens seem to be an other species in this closed state (fig. 4) at first sight, however, they correspond totally to the genitalia of S. nepalensis sp. n. (fig. 1) both in opened position and in detail in more specimens. The small differences between sternite 9 of S. nepalensis sp.n. paratype (fig. 2) and of the other specimens (e.g. fig. 3) are not