Eupsenella herbsti Kieffer 1904

Lytopsenella herbsti Kieffer, 1904

(Fig. 1)

Eupsenella herbsti Kieffer, 1904: 142, 146 (description), 143 (Fig. 1); Kieffer, 1908: 12 (list); Kieffer, 1911: 203 (type species designation for Lytopsenella).

Lytopsenella herbsti: Kieffer, 1914: 553 (Fig. 192), 544–555 (key, description, Figs. 193–194); Evans, 1964: 181 (heading), 182 (Figs. 125–128), 183 (host comment and list); Sorg, 1988: 37 (Fig. 9a), 139 (Fig. 42a); Gordh & Móczár, 1990: 33 (catalog); Polaszek & Krombein, 1994: 103 (host comment); Ohl, 1995: 409 (list), 413 (comparison); Azevedo, 1999b (misidentified as L. testaceicornis): 234 (distribution and key), 234, 236 (additional data), 235 (Figs. 1–3).

Material examined. CHILE, 1Ƥ, [IV región], Acon. Zapallar, 15.XII.1950, [E.S.] Ross & [A.E.] Michelbacher col. (CASC); 1Ƥ, [IV región], 15 mi. S. of Los Vilos, Coq[uimbo], 13.XII. [19]50, leg. [E.S.] Ross & [A.E.] Michelbacher col. (CASC); 1Ƥ, VIII región, Arauco, Pichinahuel, Cord. Nahuebuta; I.1959; L. Peña col. (UFES); 1Ƥ, [IX región], 20 km. E. of Temuco, Cautin, 8.I. [19]51, leg. [E.S.] Ross & [A.E.] Michelbacher (CASC).

New material: CHILE, 5♂, VIII región, Parque Nacional Nahuelbuta, Pichinahuel exit, 37º48´S 73º2´W, 6.XIII.2001, E. Aries col. (UCDC).

Diagnosis. The female of this species can be separated from the following species by the head being large, distinctly wider than thorax, subquadrate in dorsal view, and well developed behind eye, and also by the posterior ocellus being distant from vertex crest more than DAO. The male is unknown.

Description. Female (Fig. 1).- Body length 3.5–4.4 mm. Length of fore wing 2.7–3.0 mm. Color. Head and mesosoma black; metasoma dark castaneous; antenna dark castaneous, except anterior half of scape black; mandible black with apex dark castaneous; legs dark castaneous with tibiae and tarsi lighter; fore wing subhyaline. Head. Clypeus with angulate median lobe, median carina high extending back into frons. Antennal scape much wider than flagellomeres, flagellar pubescence mostly appressed, without setae which stand out pubescence. Flagellomeres longer than wide. Antennal scrobe not carinate. Eye sparsely haired, subtriangular in lateral view. Frons coriaceous, punctures shallow, central area can be depressed. Head subquadrate, vertex slightly convex and temple parallel, but in few specimens can be slightly divergent posterad, large, distinctly wider than thorax and 0.7x as long as mesosoma. LH 1.12–1.24x WH; WF 0.62– 0.68x WH; WF 1.34–1.45x HE; frontal angle of ocellar triangle right; OOL 1.47–1.77x WOT; posterior ocellus distant from vertex crest 1.5–1.8x DAO. VOL 0.98–1.08x HE. Occipital carina absent, but vertex crest can be sharp. Mesosoma. Pronotal disc with anterior margin mostly straight, posterior margin not followed by series of foveae. Notaulus usually incomplete anteriorly, but complete in few specimens. Parapsidal furrow complete, but weak, sometimes very inconspicuous on posteriorly third. Scutellum flat, scutellar groove very narrow, sometimes very inconspicuous, basal pit elongate. Propodeal disc 1.6–1.8x as wide as long, wholly areolate, anterior corner with conspicuous fovea, median carina usually absent, but when present very short, less than 0.2x as long as disc, discal carina as short as median one, paralleled by shallow inner depression, disc without posterior and lateral carina, lateral area of disc distinctly hairy, propodeal spiracle very elongate and inclined, its opening contiguous to anterior fovea; declivity ecarinate, lateral area distinctly hairy. Mesopleuron with central pit circular and deep. Fore wing with discoidal cell angled apically, pterostigma and prostigma large and well pigmented. Claws with first tooth straight with apex truncate and oblique, second arched with apex sharpened. Metasoma. Longer than mesosoma, transverse section elliptical; segment I–VII with about same length; apical sternites flat.

Distribution. Chile.

Remarks. One specimen from Chile has the eyes very small and, because of this, the temples are proportionally very large with VOL 1.49x HE, and the frons is also equally large with WF 1.85x HE.

Azevedo (1999b) misunderstood the concept of the species of Lytopsenella and misidentified three L. herbsti as L. testaceicornis. I take this opportunity to correct that mistake. So, the 3Ƥ from CHILE, [VIII región], Arauco, Pichinahuel, Cord. Nahuebuta; XII.1958 and I.1959; L. Peña col. (CNCI, DZUP, UFES) identified as L. testaceicornis are to be considered as L. herbsti.