(Figures 1–12, 14, 15)

Material examined

Holotype. Female Papua New Guinea, Madang, Wanang, 22 February 2006, 145 ◦ 10.910 ′ E, 5 ◦ 13.853 ′ S, 100 m, reared from larva of Philiris helena (Snellen) [Lycaenidae] collected off Macaranga cf. brachytricha A. Shaw [Euphorbiaceae] (USNM ENT 00680042, GenBank JF271565) (USNM).

Paratype. Female, Papua New Guinea, Madang, Morox, 8 July 2005, 4 ◦ 01 ′ S, 144 ◦ 06 ′ E (USNM ENT 00643676, GenBank JF271566) (RMNH).

Description

Length of body 5.7–7.3 mm, of forewing 5.0–5.3 mm.

Head. Terminal flagellomere strongly acuminate. Antenna with 45–47 (females) and 30–31 (males) flagellomeres; all flagellomeres longer than wide; first flagellomere 1.4 times as long as second one and about 3.5 times as long as wide. Palpi of female slender and maxillary palp 1.4 times as long as height of head. Occipital carina complete mediodorsally. Diameter of posterior ocellus of female 1.7–2.0 times POL, and OOL longer than diameter of posterior ocellus. Face rugose-punctate dorsally, but smooth medially. Clypeus largely depressed and smooth, ventrally obtuse. Hypoclypeal depression 0.5 times minimum width of face. Malar space as wide as basal width of mandible.

Mesosoma. Length of mesosoma 1.5 times its height. Antescutal depression present. Pronotum smooth but medially and anterolaterally rugose. Precoxal sulcus only medially distinctly impressed and crenulate. Mesopleuron smooth except for some fine punctures dorsally and some rugae end punctures anterodorsally. Episternal scrobe linear and reaching precoxal sulcus (Figure 9) Metapleuron smooth except for a few punctures. Notauli complete, crenulate and moderately wide. Mesoscutum sparsely setose, smooth except for some punctures. Scutellar sulcus wide and with one triangular median carina and 0–2 additional carinae. Scutellum more or less longitudinally impressed and smooth except for some punctures. Metanotum with complete mediolongitudinal carina. Propodeum without mediolongitudinal carina, reticulate medially, anterolaterally (except some punctures) and posteriorly largely smooth; lateroposteriorly carinae protruding forming a small tubercle (Figure 9).

Forewing. R:3-SR:SR1 = 6:22:34; 2-SR:3-SR:r-m = 14:22:11; r-m inclivous; 1-SR+M and m-cu slightly curved; m-cu rather angled with 2-CU1 (Figure 1) cu-a interstitial to distinctly postfurcal. Membrane setose except below 1A.

Hind wing. cu-a inclivous; m-cu absent; 1r-m slightly curved and reclivous; 2-M sinuate; 2-SC+R more or less widened (Figures 11, 12); SR sclerotized, curved basally; marginal cell narrower near hamuli than subapically (Figure 1); r narrowly developed (Figure 1) or absent (Figure 12).

Legs. Tarsal claws with large subbasal lobe. Hind femur comparatively robust (Figure 5), about four times as long as wide. Hind tibial spurs straight or slightly curved and sparsely setose, 0.2 and 0.3 times as long as hind basitarsus. Apex of hind tibia with a comb on inner side (Figure 10).

Metasoma. First tergite as long as apical width; dorsope and laterope large. Mediobasal area of second tergite minute. First to fifth tergites coarsely longitudinally costate. Sixth tergite mainly transversely striate. Second to fifth tergites with lateral crease. Second metasomal suture deep, crenulate-costate and wide. Median length of

second tergite 1.6 times third tergite. Ovipositor sheath slender and 0.05 times as long as forewing. Hypopygium enlarged and without ventral crease (Figure 9).

Colour. Entirely brownish yellow; basal flagellomeres apically and after 13th flagellomere entirely dark brown. Pterostigma and veins yellow, but fore wing anteriorly brown (including vein 1-R1). Wing membrane subhyaline.

Etymology

Named after Vojtech Novotny in recognition of his major contribution to tropical insect community ecology.

Notes

The holotype of V. novotnyi sp. nov. was cited by Hrcek et al. (2011) as “ Triraphis sp. ”.

According to label data and database records, the paratype female was reared from caterpillar Arctornis sp. nr. intacta Walker, (Lymantriidae) on Macaranga cf. brachytricha A. Shaw. Whilst the host tree is the same species as that from which the holotype was reared, the identification of the host seems doubtful (see Discussion).