S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 62. (Budapest, 2001)

well. The gena in the asexual female broadened behind eye in dorsal (Fig. 1A) and front views (Fig. 1C); the clypeus with irradiating striae, do not project as a distinct lamella between mandibles, the malar sulcus absent; the mesopleuron is shining, flat in the postero-dorsal margin and ventral area (Fig. 2B); the metasoma compressed laterally; the scutellum is equal or only slightly longer than the metascutellum; the tarsal claw without tooth; the propodeum forming an obtuse angle with the scutellum; the lateral propodeal carinae strongly bending outwards, with a more or less impressed median carina (Fig. 2A); the ventral spine of the hypopygium thin, with short sparse white setae not forming an apical tuft. All the mentioned characters are not exclusive for Plagiotrochus genus but the above combination define this genus. Homoplasies are very common in Cynipini (PujadeVillar & Arnedo 1997) and it is very difficult to find an exclusive diagnostic character for a certain genus of Cynipidae which is not shared with other genus or genera. For example, the main diagnostic character for recognizing Plagiotrochus in the Palaearctic area is the presence of a median propodeal carina which, however, is also presents in Fioriella (Fig. 2A) and some species of the Nearctic Loxaulus Mayr and Bassettia Ashmead genera (Melika & Abrahamson 2000). Another character, the longitudinal depression on the vertex with a median longitudinal carina is present in some asexual females of Plagiotrochus and Fioriella (Figs 1A-B) but also in some North American species, e.g., Bassettia ligni Kinsey and B. pallida Ashmead (Melika & Abrahamson 2001). The depression itself (without longitudinal carina on the bottom) on the vertex under the median ocellus is present in many cynipids, especially in the asexual females of some Andricus Hartig and Dryocosmus Giraud species, where it can develop into a cavity or elongated depression. For this reason, it is not a good diagnostic character by itself. Finally, the scutum of Callirhytis and Fioriella (Fig. 2C) is transversely sculptured, although in Callirhytis it is more impressed. Thus, we consider Fioriella as a syn. nov. of Plagiotrochus. Plagiotrochus marianii (Kieffer, 1902) comb. nov. Callirhytis marianii Kieffer, 1902 - Kieffer 1902a: 1. (asexual generation). Callirhytis meuneri Kieffer, 1902 - Kieffer 19026: 495. (sexual generation). Fioria marianii - Kieffer 1903a: 31. Fioria meuneri - Kieffer 1903a: 31. Fioriella marianii Kieffer 19036: 95. Fioriella meuneri -Kieffer 19036: 95. Material examined: as mentioned above. A new white label "Plagiotrochus marianii (Kieffer) det. PujadeVillar-99" was added to each of three pins of the type material. Plagiotrochus marianii (Kieffer) comb. nov. is the valid species name. It differs from P. australis (according to the pin's notes of Nieves-Aldrey) but is similar to P. razeti in the following characters: the head strongly coriaceous, slightly incised in dorsal view, with distinctly impressed median frontal carina (Figs 1 A, C); the lower face coriaceous, with weak but well developed irradiating striae reaching toruli; Fl and F2 are equal in length; the sculpture of the scutum impressed and interrupted (Figs 2A-B, D), with transverse carinae in between notauli; the head and the mesosoma are densely pubescent, especially the lateral surface of the pronotum (Figs 2B, 2E-F); fore wing hyaline; the body mainly black. Plagiotrochus marianii differs from P. razeti in the following characters: the impression of the frontal medial carina is rather stronger (Figs 3C-D), as is the sculpture of the scutum (Figs 2C, 3E-F); also the structure of the propodeal area differs (Figs 2A, 3A-B); body coloration also differs, among some other characters.