Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 7. (Budapest 1956)

Szelényi, G.: Notes on the Merisina (Hym., Chalcidoidea)

bear four teeth. If we maintain the standpoint that the form of the mandibles is of generic value, as we do in the case of Merisoporus, then all the Merisine species bearing four teeth on each mandibles must be placed in the genus Homoporus. H. febriculosus seems, moreover, to be closely related (if not synonymous) with H. gibbiscuta Thorns, while the differences which distinguish it from H. fulviventris Walk., were sharply drawn by Gahan, who examined the type specimen of the latter. Merisoporus was accepted by Gahan, but he synonymized M. crassinervis Thorns, with Semiotellus chalcidiphagus Walsh. & Ril. after having examined different series of both species. I agree with his opinion. The European specimens of. H. crassinervis (it is widely distributed also in Hungary) agree in every detail with the careful description of Merisoporus chalcidiphagus given by Gahan. Recently, in 1953, Erdős published his paper on new Hungarian Pteromalids in which he dealt with the genus Homoporus, too, and described a new Merisine genus under the name Pseudomerisus Erd. & Nov. According to his opinion, Merisoporus is a synonym of Phaenacra both comprending sec. A. and B. of the Thomsonian genus Homoporus. Erdő s's statement is absolutely correct and it may only be completed to some extent. Firstly, I think, the genus Phaenacra comprises only sect. B. of Thomson's Homoporus. Erdős listed under the generic name Phaenacra the following species : Pteromalus aeneus Nees, Pt. discoideus Nees, Pt. luniger Nees, Semiotellus chalcidiphagus Walsh. & Ril., Phaenacra nubigera Först., Homoporus crassinervis Thorns, and flaviscapus Thorns. In 1942, I had the opportunity to examine in the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna the type of Ph. nubigera Forst, and found that it is a synonym of H. luniger Nees. There, are numerous specimens in the collection under the name of Phaenacra nubigera ; most of them belong to lunigera, but some to chalcidiphagus, too. The dusky cloud of the fore wings is not clearly developed on all specimens. H. crassinervis Thorns, is identical with Semiotellus chalcidiphagus as already pointed out, and, although Erdős seems to take the former for a valid species, I persist in the opinion of Gahan concerning the synonymy of both species. H. flaviscapus has not originally been included by Masi in his Merisoporus, but there are no essential objections against the standpoint of Erdős. As for the genus Homoporus, Erdős restricted it to T h o m s o n's sect. A of Homoporus, arranging within the latter the species femoralis Först., chlorogaster Thorns, crassiceps Thorns, gibbiscuta Thorns and fulviventris Walk. In the same paper, he described a series of new species, viz. cupreus, pulchripes, sashegyensis, auratus, filicornis, laeviusculus, davicornis and budensis. To this list must now be added Picroscytus bicolor, which was recently described under this name by Erdős (1955). This species, however, having one single spur on the hind tibiae, belongs not to the genus Picroscytus and is a real Merisine, and, having both mandibles 4-toothed, belongs doubtless to the genus Homoporus. Pteromalus aeneus Nees and discoideus Nees were transferred by Erdős in the genus Phaenacra. The latter may be a real Phaenacra, but the former perhaps rather a Homoporus. The genus Pseudomerisus Erd. & Nov., having 4-toothed mandibles, differs from Homoporus in characteristics, which are of scant generic value. According to the author, it differs from Merisus by the antennái club not tapering in a slender point at apex, and by the abdomen which is concave after death. We can add to these differences the number of the mandibular teeth. They are, namely, unequal in Merisus, the left mandible beeing only 3-toothed. The last two differences may be estimated as being of generic value, the first one, however, is hardly adequate, because the antenna! club shows the same form even in the case of Merisus splendidus. In any case, the club in Merisus is solid, in Pseudomerisus distinctly, although very delicately, segmented. This difference presents itself valueless if one is trying to make a reliable distinction between Pseudomerisus and Homoporus. According to the differential diagnoses made by Erdős, the form of the club is the only character that distinguishes the two genera, but it can be objected, that in this respect there are some transitional forms. Thus, e. g., though in H. pulchripes Erd. the club is distinctly tapering at the tip, it is far less so as in the other species of Homoporus. Moreover, this genus comprises species which are to a great extent different in their appearance. Thus, there are two groups of species, the one of which has the first funicle-joint ring-shaped; the funicle being therefore distinctly 5-jointed (the females of H. sashegyensis, cupreus, pulchripes), whilst the other group includes the rest of the species having only two ring-joints and a 6-jointed funicle. A transitional form between the two groups represents the female of the generotype H. fulviventris. If we take into consideration the form of the male antennae, two groups again can be distinguished among the species, into the one belong those which show similar funicles in both sexes (H. pulchripes; Pseudomerisus stipae belongs also to this group), while the