A REVIEW OF THE INDIAN ENTEDONINAE (HYMENOPTERA: CHACIDOIDEA: EULOPHIDAE)
DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
iWagter of ^Ijilosroptip
IN ZOOLOGY
BY SHAMA PARVEEN
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH 2005 DS3736
2 3 JUL V.09 CONTENTS
Acknowledgements i
Synopsis ii
Introduction 1-2
Material and Methods 3
Chapter 1: On the types of some Indian Entedoninae 4-15
Cluysocluiris species 4
Cliiysoiwtomyia species 5-10
Entcdon species 10-12
Entedonastichus species > 12
Euderomphale species 13
Para/wrismeinis species 13-15
Pediobius species 15
Chapter 2: A preliminary cliecl References 24-29 Figures 1-45. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am thankful to Dr. Mohammad Hayat, Professor and Chairman, Department of Zoology, under whose guidance and supervision this research work was carried out. I am thankful to Dr. (Mrs.) Shoeba Binte Anis, for her help during the preparation of the present dissertation. I am also thankful to my senior research colleagues in the Department for their help and encouragement. 1 am very greateful to my parents, brother, sisters and friends for their constant encouragement and support during my research vv'ork. Shama Parveen -1- SYNOPSIS The present dissertation deals witli a Review of tlie taxonomic status of the hidian Entedoninae (Hymenoptera; Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae). The subfamily is represented by 62 in 19 genera. However, the taxonomic status of at least 30 species need to be established because their original descriptions are totally inadequate. But the types of only 15 species are available in the collections of the Department of Zoology, A.M.U., Aligarh. The location of the types of the remaining earlier described species are not known. The present study lead to the proposal of the following new combinations and new synonymies: Chiysochaiis linphakmis (Chishti & Shafee), from Pediohhis', Chrysonolomyia hyalinipennis (Khan & Shafee), from Neoclvysocharis; Chrysonotomyia piihipennis (Khan & Shafee), from Neochiysocbaris; Enleclon gunliirensis (Shafee & Rizvi), from Pediohhis; Entedon longicorpus (Khan & Shafee), from Pediobhis; Enledon ihoidjalensis (Chishti & Shafee), from Pediohius; Entedonastichus postmarginalis (Shafee, Rizvi & Khan), from Eitderomphak; Parahoiisimnm infuscatipennis (Shafee, Fatma, Khan & Shujauddin), from Pediohhis; Parahorismeinis pondychenyensis (Shafee & Rizvi), from Pediobiiis; Chrysonolomyia keirichi Khan & Shafee, a new synonym of C. posinuirginaloidcs (Saraswat); Chrysonolomyia latipennis Khan & Shafee, a new synonym of C. piilclierrima (Kerrich). Apart from these new combinations and synonyms proposed on the basis of study of relevant types, the author also proposed one new synonym and one new combination, based on the literature. These are: Omphale epilachni Singh & Khan, a new synonym of Chrysonolomyia appannai; and Chrysonolomyia indica (SushiI & Khan), from Obesuhis. INTRODUCTION The insects belonging to the Order Hymenoptera arc one of the most numerous groups of insects, with many members, especially the bees, wasps and ants, familiar to every one. But a majority of the Hymenoptera consists of small to very minute forms which are mainly parasitoids or hyperparasitoids of economically important plant pest species. Among these parasitoid species, those belonging to the Superfamily Chalcidoidea rank next only to the Ichneumonoidea in the number of described species, as well as in their use for the Biological Control of insect pests. These chalcids are known for keeping the pest populations under check in their natural habitats. Taxonomic studies on these chalcidoid parasitoids, especially in India, began very late, in the latter half of the last century, and then only when their role as efficient Biological Control agents was recognized. Despite their presence in almost every habitat, these chalcidoids remain the poorest known group among the Hymenoptera. The main reason appears to be their small size, lack of proper methods for their collection. However, with the development of newer techniques in collecting these tiny insects, taxonomic studies have gained impetus all over the world. Compared to the world fauna, the Indian fauna is very little known, especially in the large families Pteromalidae and Eulophidae. Therefore, the present author has taken up the study of these eulophid parasitoids. As a first step in this direction, it was decided to -know' the already described species from India, rather than add more 'new species' without knowing the described species. Unfortunately, a majority of the described species is unrecognizable because of inadequate and poor original descriptions, and the non-availability of the types of a majority of the Indian Eulophids. A first step in the direction leading to the clarification of ihe generic placement of the Indian species of the family Euiophidae has already been taken with the publication by Hayat & Shahi (2004) on the types of some species of the subfamily Tetrastichinae. In the present dissertation, the author deals with the systematic position of the Indian species of the subfamily Entedoninae. This subfamily is presently represented by 19 genera and 62 species. The identities of a majority of the earlier described species are not known because of their inadequate original descriptions, and the non-availability of types. However, types of the 15 species described by [the Late] Dr. S.A. Shafee and his co-workers are available in the collections of the Department of Zoology, A.M.U., Aligarh (ZDAMU). Therefore, the present dissertation is restricted to provide comments on these Types. The present dissertation is devided into two chapters; Chapter 1 deals with the la.xonomic status of the Indian species of Entedoninae whose Types are located in the ZDAMU. This Chapter is supported by 45 illustrations. The second Chapter includes a Checklist of the Indian species of Entedoninae. In this Chapter, the author has attempted to place some species in their coiTect genera based on their original, and often quite inadequate original descriptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS Material studied: The present dissertation is concerned witli a review of tlie already described species of the eulophid subfamily Entedoninae. To achieve this end, the author has studied all the Types of the entedontine species present in the Department of Zoology, A.M.U., Aligarh. Attempts to obtain the Types of earlier described Indian species of Entedoninae failed, as these Types were not available in the depositories (Museums) where they arc supposed to have been deposited, or the authors did not respond to requests made for the loan of the Types. Methodology: The Type specimens were identified to their correct genus with the help of the generic keys to the Eulophidae given by Boucek (1988) and Schauff e/ al. (1997), the two most recent and most reliable publications available for identification of the eulophid genera. Drawings of required parts were made v/ith the help of a drawing tube attached to a compound microscope. Measurements from carded specimens were taken with an ocular micrometer (linear scale, 100 divisions) placed in the eye-piece of a stereoscopic binocular microscope. Those from the slide-mounted parts were taken with the help of an ocular micrometer having a linear scale of 100 divisions placed in the eye-piece of a compound microscope. CHAPTER -1 On the types of some Indian Entedoninae 1. Clirysocharis imphakmis (Chishti & Shafce), comb. nov. (Figs. 33-36) Pediobim imphaknsls Chishti & Shafee, 1988: 21, $. Holotype ?: India, Manipur, Imphal (ZDAMU), examined. Type specimen examined: Molotype $, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based up on a single female, the holotype. There is a slide with one antenna and a fore wing under a large coverslip, and rest of the body (head, thorax, and gaster separated) in a drop of balsam on the same slide, The slide has a ticket bearing the name of the species and number '46', and a second ticket with the writing partly washed out. This specimen is regarded as the holotype as it agrees with original description, and the figures were drawn from the slide mounted parts, it is now labelled as the holotype of imphalensis in Hayat's handwriting on the reverse side of the slide. I have now put a coverslip on the body parts. There is also one further female on a second slide. This specimen is in a drop of balsam, with parts under a large coverslip. It is labelled 'paratype P. impha.' and has number 46.1. Although it has no paratype status as the species was described from a single female, there is no doubt of this specimen agreeing with the holotype. This species with out any doubt to Clirysocharis. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Manipur. 2. Chrysonotomyia liyalinipennis (Khan & Shafcc), comb. nov. Neoclvysocharis hyalinipennis Khan & Shafee, 1980: 486-488, ?, 6, Holotype $: India, Aligarh (ZDAMU). Type specimens examined: Holotype $, 3 ?, 1 c? paratypes, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon 4 females and one male, holotype female and paratypes. The holotype was in alcohal in a vial. It has a ticket bearing the name of the species, correct data and reference number 'K.20.D.'. It is now mounted on a card and ihc original ticket pinned along with the card. In a vial whose stopper has number •K..20.D' are found a female and a male (minus antenna and wings of one side). These are regarded as paratypes and are now mounted on a single card, the card is labelled in Hayat's handwriting. Also found are 6 slides with parts of 2 female. These slides carry labels bearing the regarded as paratypes and labelled as such. The holotype and the two paratypes which are removed from alcohal and mounted on cards has their bodies badly shrunken and otherwise distorted due to long preservation in alcohal. The holotype and the slide-mounted paratypes are labelled as 'hyulipennis' whereas the species name was published as 'hyalinipennis'. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India, Uttar Pradesh. 3. Chrysonotomyia longiclava Shafee *& Rizvi (Figs, 8-11) Chrysonotomyia longiclava Shafee & Rizvi,1988: 35-36, $, Holotype ?: India, Jhansi (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $ with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the hololype. There is no specimen labelled as this species in Shafee's collection. But 1 found two slides containing dissected part of one female, one slide carries the name 'Neodvysocharis' written on two tickets, one with pencil and the other in ink. This slide has also reference number '703'. The second slide has only the reference number '703'. This specimen agrees with the original description and the figures, and is regarded as the holotype. The slides are labelled as holotype of longiclava in Hayat's handwriting. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Uttar Pradesh (Jhansi). 4. Cliiysonotoinyia postnuirginaloides (Saraswat) (Figs. 1-4) Tcirastichus poslmarginaloides Saraswat, 1975: 19, $. Holotype $: hidia, Shencottah Gap (USNM). Chiysonotomyia keirichi Khan & Shafee, 1981: 348-350, $, S- Holotype $: India, Aligarh (ZDAMU). As a questionable synonym of poslmarginaloides by Boucek, 1986:404. SYN. NOV. Type specimens examined: C. keirichi: Holotype $, 7 $, 1 (^, paratypes, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a female holotype and 8 female and one male paratypes. The hololypc was in alcohal in a vial with a ticket bearing correct data, name of the species and type designation. It has reference number '49A'. There are five slides with 2 females and part of a male. Four of these slides have the name of the species and reference number, where as one slide has only number '49A' written with a green glass marking pencil. These are regarded as paratypes. In a vial whose stopper has number '49A' are found 5 females and oncmale (minus one antenna and genitalia, which are on a slide). These specimens are also regarded as paratypes. The holotype and the 6 specimens found in a vial have become very pale yellow, and are now mounted on cards; the holotype on one card with the original ticket pinned along with the card, and the paratypes on 3 cards. The paratypes are labelled in Hayat's handwriting. C. kerrichi was regarded as a questionable synonym of poslmarginuloides by Boucek (1986), but I find it indistinguishable from Saraswat's species and, there fore, synonymize kerrichi with poslinarginaloides. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Uttar Pradesh. 5. Cluysonotoinyiapubipennis (Khan &. Shafee), comb. nov. (Figs. 15-16) Neochrysocharispuhipenms Khan & Shafee, 1980: 488-489, $. Holotype $: India, Aligarh (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as noted under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. The holotype was dissected and mounted on 3 slides. The slides bear the name of the species and reference number "0', but no type designation. One slide has the head thorax and gaster separated and are in a drop of balsam. I have now put a coverslip on these parts. This specimen is regarded as the holotype and is labelled as such in Hayat's handwriting. Hosts; Unknown. Distribution: India: Ultar Pradesh. 6. Cluysoiwtoinyiu piilc/iem'ma (Kcrrich) (Figs. 5-7) Aclvysocharispulcherrimus Kerrich, 1970: 330, $. Holotype $: Malawi, Bvumbwe (Nat.Hist.Mus, London). [Also Kenya and Mozambique]. Kerrich, 1974: 629, Shujabad (Pakistan) record. Chysunotomyia laiipennis Khan & Shafee, 1981: 350-351, $. Holotype ?: Hardwagunj near Aligarh (ZDAMU). As a questionable synonym of pulcherrima by Boucek, 1986: 403. SYN. NOV. Chiysonoiomyia pulcherrima (Kerrich): Husain & Khan, 1986: 215. Type specimen examined: C. laiipennis: Holotype $, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. The Holotype was in alcohol in a vial, with one antenna, wings and legs of one slide on two slides. The vial carries a ticket bearing correct data, name of the species and type designation, and has reference number 'K 13'. The specimen is removed from alcohal and mounted on a slide in balsam, and the original ticket is glued on to the slide. The two slides bearing parts of the holotype bear the name of the species and the same reference number. These are regarded as parts of the holotype and labelled as such. This species was considered a questionable synonym of pulchenima by Boucek (1986), but I implement this synonymy as I find no characters to distinguish these species. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: hidia: Uttar Pradesh. 7. Clirysonotomyiu younusi, noin. nov, (Figs. 12-14) Neochrysochaiis melaUicus Khan & Shafee, 1980: 488, $. Holotype ?: India, Bangalore (ZDAMU). Preoccupied in CIvysonolomyia by melallicci (Ashmead, 1894). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, 1 $, paratype, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon two females, a holotype and a paratype. The holotype was in alcohol in a vial. The vial has a ticket bearing the name of the species, correct data and type designation, and reference number '215'. This specimen has one antenna, wings and legs of one slide, missing. [The slide with these missing parts was not found]. This specimen is now mounted on a slide in balsam and the original ticket is glued on to the slide. There are two slides containing the dissected parts of one female. These slides bear the name of the species and reference number •215' but no type designation. This specimen is regarded as the paratype and labelled as such. 10 The specific name metallicus in Chysonotomyia is a homonym of melallica (Ashmead, 1894) [see LaSalle and Schauff, 1992: 8] and is here given a new name based on the name of the first author, Mohd.Younus Khan. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Uttar Pradesh.' 8. EiUedon giintiirensis (Shafcc & Rizvi), comb. nov. (Figs. 37-38) Pediohius gunluremls Shafee & Rizvi, 1985: 162-164, 9- Holotype $: India, Guntur (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype 9, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. There is no specimen labelled as this species in Shafee's collection, but I found two slides bearing only the generic name and reference number '710'. One slide has one antenna and a fore wing under a large coverslip. Rest of the body [minus wings of one slide] is removed from the mounting medium, the head, antenna, thorax and gaster are separated and all mounted on a card. This specimen agrees entirely with the original description of gimluremis and is regarded as the holotype, and labelled in Hayat's hand writing. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Andhra Pradesh. 9. Entedon longicorpus (Khan & Shafee), comb. nov. (Figs. 39-40) Pediohius longicorpus Khan & Shafee, 1982: 373-374, 9. Holotype 9: India, 11 Aligarh (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as given under omments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. The holotype (minus one antenna, one fore wing and legs of one slide) was in alcohol in a vial. It has a ticket bearing the name of the species, correct data and type designation, and reference number 'K.20.A'. The specimen is now removed from alcohal and mounted on a card and the original ticket pinned along with the card. There are two slides bearing the name of the species and reference number 'K.20.A'. One of the slides contains the missing parts of the holotype and is now labelled as holotype parts in Hayat's handwriting. The second slide has parts from some other eulophid species. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India; Uttar pradesh. 10. Entedon thoubalensis (Chishti & Shafee), comb. nov. (Figs. 25-26) Pediobius thoubalensis Chishti & Shafee, 1988: 21-23, ?. Holotype $: India, Manipur, Thoubal (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female specimen, the holotype. There is a single female specimen on a side in a drop of balsam, with parts under a large coverslip on the same slide. The slide is labelled 'P. thouble.' and has number '45'. This specimen agrees with the original description and is regarded as the holotype. The body is removed from balsam, head, thorax and gaster separated and all mounted on 12 a card. This card and the slide are labelled as holotype of P. ihoubalemis in Hayat's handwriting. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Manipur. 11. EiUedonastichiis postmarginalis (Shafee, Rizvi & Khan), comb. nov. (Figs. 20-24) Eiicleromphale poslmarginalis Shafee, Rizvi & Khan, 1988: 2, $. Holotype $: India, Ullar Pradesh, Bulandshahr (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as noted under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. There is no specimen labelled as this species in Shafee's collection. But I found a specimen dis.sected and mounted on two slides. This specimen agrees with the original description and figures given for poslmarginalis. The slides carry tickets bearing reference number '723' and 'sp.n'. The head, thorax and gaster are on one slide in a drop of balsam. 1 have now put two coverslip pieces on these parts. These two slides are now labelled as holotype in Hayat's handwriting. The species is placed on a balance of characters in Entedonaslichus Girault (see Boucek, 1988), although it is very close to one species of Ceranisus with an unsegmented clava and anteriorly angulate scutellum, C nubilipemis (Williams) (see Trjapitsyn & Headrich, 1995). Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Uttar Pradesh. 13 12. Eiuleroinpliale loiigipedicelus Shafce, Rizvi & Khan (Figs. 17-19) Euderowphale longipedicelus Shafee, Rizvi & Klian, 1988: 1-2, $. Holotype $: India, Jharkhand, Ranchi (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as given under comments. Commcnts:The original description of this species was based upon two females, a holotype and a paratype. There are no specimens labelled as this species in Shafee's collection. But I found two slides containing a dissected female that agrees entirely with the original description of this species. These slides bear the name 'Euderomphale' and reference number '688'. The body on one slide was in a drop of balsam. I have now put a coverslip on it. The female on two slides is regarded as the holotype and labelled as such in Hayat's handwriting. The single paratype was not found, and is probably lost. Hosts; Unknown. Distribution: India: Jharkhand. 13. Parahorismeniis infiiscatipeitnis (Shafee et.al.), comb. nov. (Figs. 27-28) Pediobius infuscatipennis Shafee, Fatma, Khan & Shujauddin, 1984: 620, $. Holotype $: India, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. There is a slide with one antenna and wings of one slide under a large coverslip. The slide has the name of the species and reference number '687 A', but no type 14 dcsignalion. The body was found in alcohol in a vial [along with the body of Eupleclrus laiifrons, a genus belonging to the Eulophinae] whose stopper has number '687'. This specimen is regarded as the holotype of infiiscaiipennis. It is now mounted on a card and a ticket labelled as holotype of?, infuscatipemvs in Hayat's handwriting is pinned along with the carded specimen. PeJiohius infiiscatipennis belongs in the genus Parahorismemis. It has the mesoscutum and scutellum with a strongly punctate-reticulate sculpture, and both with numerous setae (see Boucek, 1988, for generic character). Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Andaman & Nicobar Islands. 14. Paralwrismeniispondicheriyeiisis (Shafee & Rizvi), comb. nov. (Figs. 29-32) Pecliohiusponclicherryensis Shafee & Rizvi, 1985: 164-165, $. Holotype $: India, Pondicherry (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. There is no specimen labelled as this species in Shafee's collection. But there is a slide with a hind leg, one antenna and a fore wing under a large coverslip. This slide has only the generic name and reference number '712'. The specimen was found in a vial whose stopper has number '712'. This specimen agrees with the original description of pondichenyemis and is regarded as the holotype. It is now mounted on a card, and a ticket labelled as holotype of P. ponclicherryensis in Hayat's handwriting is pinned along with the carded specimen. 15 Tills species belongs to Parahorismemis, although the hind femora are swollen and venlrally denticulate. It is very close to and may eventually prove to be a senior synonym o[ Alullyafemomla Surekha & Narendran (1988) [ In the reprint of the paper by Surekha & Narendran made available to M.Hayat, Dr. Narendran has written that AtuUya is a synonym oiParahorismenus]. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Pondicherry. 15. Ped'iobhis madunilensis Shafee &. Rizvi (Figs. 41-45) Pediobius maduraiensis Shafee & Rizvi, 1985: 164, $. Holotype $: India, Madurai (ZDAMU). Type specimen examined: Holotype $, with details as given under comments. Comments: The original description of this species was based upon a single female, the holotype. There is no specimen labelled as this species in Shafee's collection. But there are two slides containing a female which agrees entirely with the original description of this species. One slide has under a large coverslip one antenna and one forewing; and rest of the body (dissected) was on the second slide. These dissected parts are readjusted and a coverslip was put on these parts. These slides bear only reference number '699', and nothing else. These slide mounted parts are regarded as holotype of maduraiensis and labelled as such in Hayat's handwriting. Hosts: Unknown. Distribution: India: Tamil Nadu. 16 CHAPTER - 2 A preliminary checklist of Indian Entedoninae ARRANGEMENT: The genera and, under each genus, the species are arranged in alphabetical order. For well-known species, instead of the original citations, the most recent citations are given. This is not a catalogue, therefore detailed citations to the genera and species, distribution records and host records are also not given. The author has also implemented some transfers of species as new combinations wherever it was felt that the original authors placed the species in the wrong genera, and also proposed some synonymies. I. Genus Apleurotropis Girault l.ApleiirotropissivudasaniSurekha & Narendran Aplenrolrupis sivctdciscmi Surekha & Narendran, 1992 : 269-270, $: India, Kerala, Agali. \1. Apleurotropis viswanailiani Surekha & Narendran Apleurotropis vmwwc///?^/?/Surekha & Narendran, 1992:268-269, $ : India, Kerala, Mukkali near Silent Valley. II. Genus Clnysocliaris Foerster 1. Cluysocharis ajiigiis Dubey Chrysocharis ajugus Dubey, 1974: 417-418, F: India, Bharatpur. Also Kerala. [Note: This species may eventually prove to belong to Chrysonolomyia.] 2. Chrysocharis echinata (Mani) Nesomyia echinata Mani, 1989 : 1473-1474, F, M : India, Chennai. Transferred to Chrysocharis by Noyes (1999). 17 3. Chiysocluiris lioiiicola Mani Chrysocharis horiicola Mani, 1971 ; 596-576, F ; India, Aligarh. [Note: This species may evenlually prove to belong to Chrysowlomyia.] 4. Chrysocharis imphalensis (Cliishti & Shafce) [see Chapter -1] 5. Chrysocharis johnsoni Subba Rao Chrysocharis jolmsoni, Subba Rao, 1957: 52, ?, S- hidia, Trivandrum. 6. Chrysocharis pubicornis ( Zetterstedt) Chrysocharis pubicornis (Zetterstedt): Boucek 1988: 719, India record. III. Genus Chrysonotomyia Ashmead 1. Chrysonotomyia appainiai (Kurian) [species incertae sedis] Achrysocluiris appannai Kurian, 1953:114, $, (5": India, Bangolore. Chrysonolomyia oppannai ( Kurian): Husain & Khan, 1986:214. Omphale epilachni Singh & Khan, 1998: 123, $ : India, Pantnagar. SYN. NOV. 2. Clirysonotoniyia hyalinipennis (Khan & Shafce) [see Chapter -1] 3. Chrysonotomyia indica (Sushil & Khan), comb. nov. Oljcsulus indicus Sushil & Khan, 1999: 239-242, ?: India, Pantnagar. 4. Chrysonotomyia locustivora (Rohwer) Pediobopsis locustivora Ro\mer, 1921: 126, 9: hidia, Coimbatore. Transferred to Chrysonolomyia by Boucek, 1988: 720. 5. Chrysonotomyia longiclava Shafce & Rizvi [see Chapter -1]. 6. Chrysonotomyia obesula Boucek Chrysonolomyia obesula Boucek, 1986: 405-406, $: India, Gorakhpur. 7. Chrysonotomyia postmarginaloides (Saraswat) [see Chapter -1]. S. ClnysoiuXoinyid piibipeiiiiis (Khan & Shafce) [see Chapter -1]. 9. Clilirysonotomyia piilcherrlimi (Kcrrich) [sec Chapter-1], 1(1. Climoiiotoinyia rexiii Narciulraii Chrysonoiomyia rexia Narendran, in Narendran el cil., 2001: 153-154, $, S: India, Maharashtra, Pahuri. 11. Cliiysoiwtumyia tluikerei (Subba Rao), comb. nov. Rhopaluliis ihakerei Subba Rao, 1957; 51-52, ?, S- India, New Delhi. rccliohiiis Ihakerei (Subba Rao): Musain & Khan, 1986: 230. IV. Genus Closterocenis Westwood 1. Closterocenis ugroinyzae Narayanan et al. Closierocents agrumyzae Narayanan, Subba Rao & Ramachandra Rao, 1960: 169, $: India, Delhi. 2. Closterocenis iiisigiiis Waterstpn Closierocenis insignis Waterston, 1915: 330-333, $: Sri Lanka, Peradeniya Mani, 1971: 594-595. India (Kerala) record. 3. Closterocenis phytomyzae Mani Closierocenis phylomyzae Mani, 1971: 595-596 . $: India, Chhalesar, 8 Km. east of Agra. 4. Closterocenis scapiattis Singh & Khan Closierocenis scapiatus Singh & Khan, 1996: 158-159, $: India, Pantnagar. V. Genus Entedon Dalman 1. Entedon giinturensis (Shafec & Rizvi) [see Chapter -1]. 2. Entedon longicorpiis (Khan & Shafec) [see Chapter -I], 21 XIV. Genus Panaominomyhi Girault 1. Parzaoinnwmyia maUibarka Narendran Parzaommomyia malabarica Narendran, in Narendran & Thomas, 2003: 19- 20, 9- India, Kerala, Thirunelli. XV. Genus Pediobius Walker 1. Pediobius acantlia (Walker) Pediubius accmlha ( Walker): Kerrichi, 1973: 159-160, taxonomy, distribution. 2. Pediobius agaristae (Cameron) Pediobius agarislae (Cameron): Kerrichi, 1973: 167-168, Indian record. 3. Pediobius beihylicidus Kcrrich Pediobius beihylicidus Kerrichi, 1973: 162, 9- India, Lucknow; also West Bengal and Plassey. 4. Pediobius bruchicidu (Rondani) Pediobius /)/";rc/?/c/c/a (Rondani): Kerrichi, 1973: 179. 5. Pediobius cydiae Khan Pediobius cydiae Khan, 1996: 105-107, ?. India, Rishikesh. 6. Pediobius deplagastrus Surckha »& Narendran, 7. Pediobius elasmi (Ashmead) Pediobius elasmi (Ashmead): Kerrichi, 1973: 166-167, Indian records. 8. Pediobius foveoUitus (Crawford) Plewoiropis foveolalus Crawford, 1912: 7, ?. India, Bangolore. Pleuroiropis epilachnae Rohwer, 1921: 126-127, $. India, Coimbatore. Pediobius foveolalus (Crawford): Kerrich,1973: 163-165, Indian record. 22 9. Pediobiusfratenms (Motschulsky) Pecliobiiisfratemus (Motschulsky): Kerrich,1973: 173-174, Indian record. 10. Pediobius imbreiis (Walker) Enladon (Pediobius) /m/;rew.v Walker, 1846; 184-185. India, Bombay^ Mumbai. Pleurolropis delrimenlosus Gahan, 1930: 9, $. India, Tamil Nadu, Palur Pediobius imbveus (Walker): Kerrich, 1973 ; 181-182, Indian records. \\. Pediobius indicus K\VA\\ Pediobius indicus Khan, 1985: 155-156, $. India, Pantnagar. 12. Pediobius maduraiensis Shafce & Rizvi [see Chapter -1] \2>. Pediobius /;/Klian Pediobius ni Khan, 1996: 104-105, $. India, Pantnagar. [The specific name is pre-occupied by Pediobius ni Peck, 1985] 14. Pediobius salicifo/ii Khan Pediobius scdicifolii Khan,\996: 107-108, $. India, U. P.(?). 15. Pediobius steiwchoreus Kerrich Pediobius stenochoreus Kerrich, 1973: 175-176, $. Pakistan, Rawalpindi. Also India. 16. Pediobius viggianii Khan Pediobius viggianii Khan, 1996: 102-104, $. India, Moradabad. XVI, Genus Pleurotroppopsis Girault 1. Pleiiroti'oppopsis dentata (Surekha & Narendran), comb. nov. Aiullya dentaia Surekha & Narendran, 1988: 195, $. India, Kerala, Calicut. [lesie Narendran as noted in the reprint of the paper.] i^ XVII. Genus Pomphale Husain, Rauf i& Kudeshia 1. Pomphale setosipennis Hayat & Zeya Pomphale setosipennis Hayat & Zeya, 1992; 184-185, $. India, Bihar, Gaya. Non-type specimen examined : INDIA : Jharkhand, Ranchi, 1 $, 27.ii.1994 (S.B. Zeya). 2. Pomphale striptipennis Husain, Rauf «& Kudeshia Pomphale siriplipennis Husain, Rauf & Kudeshia, 1983: 112-113, S- India, Aligarh. LaSalle & Schauff, 1994: 252, Pakistan record. XVIII. Genus ShurdieUa Sushil i& Khan Note: The original description and the illustrations given by Sushil & Khan, 1997, indicate tliat this genus will most likely prove to be a synonym of the genus Chrysonolumyia.] 1. Sluirdiella savitri Sushil & Khan Shanliella savitri Sushil & Khan, 1997: 88-90, $. India, Nainital, Kaladungi. XIX. Genus Thripobiiis Ferriere 1. Thripobiiis semiluteiis Boucek Thripobiiis semiluteiis Boucek, 1976: 412-413 $, Africa, Sao Tome. Also India, Mudigere and Hebbal. 24 REFERENCES BOUCEK. Z. 1976. Taxonomic studies on some Eulophidae (Hym.) of economic interest, mainly from Africa. Entomophaga, 21: 401-414. BOUCEK, Z. 1986. Taxonomic study of chalcidoid wasps (Hymenoptera) associated with gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) on mango trees. Bull. Ent. Res., 76: 393-407. BOUCEK, Z. 1988. Australasian Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). CAB Internl., Wallingford, Oxon. 832pp. CHISHTI, A.K. & SHAFEE, S.A. 1988. Species of the genera Elacherlus Spinola and PecUuhlus Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) from India. Indian J. Syst. Ent., 5: 19-23. CRAWFORD, J.C. 1912. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera. No.4. Proc. U. S. Natl Mus.,42: 1-10. DUBEY, O.P. 1974. Some new and little known chalcidoid parasites (Hymenoptera) of leaf-mining Agromyzidae (Diptera) from India. Oriental Ins., 8: 413-418. FERRIERE, C. 1940. Chalcid flies attacking noxious beetles in India and New Guinea. Bull. Ent. Res., 30: 163-168. GAHAN, A.B. 1930. Synonymical and descriptive notes on parasitic Hymenoptera. Proc. U. S. Natl Mus., 77(8): 1-12. HANSSON, C. 1990. A taxonomic study of the Palearctic species of Chrysonolomyia Ashmead and Neochiysocharis Kurdjumov (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Ent. Scandinavica, 21:29-52. HAYAT, M. & SHAHI, M.H. 2004. Taxonomic notes on the Indian Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) - 1. On the types of the some Tetrastichinae. 25 Oriental Ins., 38:303-314. HAYAT, M. & ZEYA, S.B. 1992. Description of a new species of Pomphale (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Hexapoda, 4: 183-186. HUSAIN, T. & KHAN, M.Y. 1986. Family Eulophidae (pp.211-245) In: The Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of India and the adjacent countries. Part 2. (Eds.B.R. Subba Rao & M. Hayat). Oriental Ins., 20: 1-430. HUSAIN, T., RAUF, A. & KUDESHIA, P. P. 1984. Pomphale striptipennis gen. et sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). J. Ent. Res. New Delhi, 7: 112-114. KERRICH, G.J. 1970. On the taxonomy of some African Eulophidae (Hym., Chalcidoidea) associated with oil palm, coffee and mango. Bull. Ent. Res., 60: 327-331. KERRICH, G.J. 1973. A revision of the tropical and subtropical species of the eulophid genus Pediobhis Walker (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bull. British Mus. Nat. Hist. (Ent.), 29: 115-199. KERRICH, G.J. 1974. Systematic studies on Eulophidae of economic significance (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Bull. Ent. Res., 63: 629-639. KHAN, M.A. 1985. Eulophid parasites (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) of Agromy- zidae in India. J.Bombay Nat.Hist. Soc, 82: 149- 159. KHAN, M.A. 1996. Parasitic wasps of genus Pediobius Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) from northern India. J.Insect Sci., 9: 102-1II. KHAN, M. Y.& SHAFEE, S.A. 1980. Three new species of the genus Neochrysocharis Kurdjumov (Eulophidae: Entedontinae) from India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc, 76:486-490+ 1 plate .- y^>-- ••;•. •'.. 26 KHAN, M.Y. & SHAFEE, S.A. 1981. New species of the genus CIvysonolomyia Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) from India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc, 78: 348-351. KHAN, M.Y. & SHAFEE, S.A. 1982. Species of the genus Pediobius Walker (Eulophidae; Entedontinae) from India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist., 79: 370-374. KURIAN, C. 1953. Descriptions of new and records of some known parasitic Hymenoptera from India. Agra Univ. J. Res. (Sci.), 2: 113 - 124. LASALLE, J. & SCHAUFF, M.E. 1994. Systematics of the tribe Euderomphalini (Hym- noptera: Eulophidae): parasitoids of whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Syst. Ent., 19:235-258. MANl, M.S. 1939. Descriptions of new and records of some known chalcidoid and other hymenopterous parasites from India. Indian J. Ent., 1: 69-99. MANI, M.S. 1971. Some chalcidoid parasites (Hymenoptera) of leaf-mining Agromyzidae (Diptera) from India. J. Nat. Hist., 5: 591-598. MANl, M.S. 1989. The Fauna of India and the adjacent countries. Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Part II. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. NARAYANAN, E.S., SUBBA RAO, B.R. & RAMACHANDRA RAO, M. 1960. Some new species of chalcids from India. Proc. Natl Inst. Sci. India, B26: 168-175. NARENDRAN, T.C., GOLANDE, S.M. & MOTE, V.N. 2001. Two new species of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from Maharashtra, India. Uttar Pradesh J. Zool., 21: 153-157. NARENDRAN. T.C. KUMAR, P.G. & SANTHOSH, S. 2005. Alpha taxonomy of three i.eu. species of Eulophidae (Hymenoplera: Chalcidoidea) of India. J. exp. Zool., 27 India, 8: 113-120. NARENDRAN, T.C. & SHEELA, S. 1993. On a new genus and new species of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from India. J. Zool. Soc. Kerala, 3: 47-,50. NARENDRAN, T.C. & THOMAS, S.K. 2003. An interesting new species and new records of the genus Panaommomyia Girault (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) from the Western Ghats, Kerela, India. J. Adv. Zool.-; 24: 19-20. ROIIWER, S.A. 1921. Descriptions of new chalcidoid flies from Coimbatore, South India. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (9)7: 123-135. SARAS WAT, G.G. 1975. On some Telraslichus (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from India. Mem. School Ent. St. John's College, Agra, No. 4: 1 - 34. SCllAUFF, M.E. 1991. The Holarctic genera of Entedoninae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Contrib. American Ent. Inst,, 26: 1-109. SCHAUFF, M.E., LASALLE, J. & COOTE, L.D. 1997 'Chapter 10 Eulophidae' pp.327- 429. In: G.A.P. Gibson, J.T. Huberand J.B. Woolley [eds]: Annotated keys to the genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 794pp. SHAFEE, S.A., FATMA, S., KHAN, M.Y. & SHUJAUDDIN. 1984. Two new species of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from Andaman Islands. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc, 80:618-620. SHAFEE, S.A & R12V1, S. 1985. Three new species of Pediobim Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) from South India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc, 82: 162-165. 28 SHAFEE, S.A & RlZVl, S, 1988. Descriptions of three new species of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera) from India. Indian J. Sysl, Ent., 5: 35-38. SHAFEE, S.A., RlZVl, S. & KHAN, M.Y. 1988. A new tribe and three new species of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Indian J. Syst. Ent., 5: 1-4. SINGH, R.S.J. & KHAN, M.A. 1996. Description of a new species of C/av/erocen/.y Westwood (Chalcidoidea; Eulophidae), a parasitoid associated with sisam leaf miner. .1. Insect Sci., 9: 158-159. SINGH, R.S.J & KHAN, M.A. 1998. A new species of Omphale Haliday (Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae), parasitising eggs of coccinelllid beetle from Pantnagar, India. Shashpa, 5: 123-126. SUBBA RAO, B. R. 1957. Some new species of Indian Eulophidae. Indian J. Ent., 19: 50-53. SUREKHA, K. & NARENDRAN, T.C. 1988. A new genus and two new species of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from India. Uttar Pradesh J. Zool., 8: 191-198. SUREKHA, K. & NARENDRAN,T.C. 1992. Taxonomy of four new species of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from India. J. Ecobiol., 4: 265-270. SURESHAN, P. & NARENDRAN, T.C. 2001. A new species ofLaclna Boucek (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae) from India. Oriental Ins., 35: 203- 206. SUSHIL, S.N. & KHAN, M.A. 1997. A new genus SMiella gen. n. of Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea ) from northern India. Shashpa, 4: 87 - 90. SUSHIL. S.N, & KHAN, M.A. ,999. A new species of the genus Obesulus Boucek 29 (1 lymenoptei-a: Eulophidae) from northern India. J. Ent. Res. New Delhi, 23: 239-242. TRJAPITSYN, S.V. & HEADRICK, D.H. 1995. A review of the Nearctic species of the thrips-attacking genus Ceranisus Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Trans. American Ent. Soc, 121: 227-248. WALKER, F. 1846. Characters of some undescribed species of Chalcidites. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (1)17: 177-185. WATERSTON,J. 1915. New speciesofChalcidoidea from Ceylon. Bull. Ent. Res., 5; 325-342. \.'\ '" ''/- FIGURES 1-45 Figs. 1-7. (1-4) Chrysonolomyia poslmarginaloides (Saraswat), Female: 1, antenna; 2, mandible; 3, fore wing; 4, thorax, [drawn from type of C. kerrichi] (5-7) Chrysonolomyiapulcheirima (Kerrich), Female: 5, antenna; 6, fore wing; 7, thorax. [Drawn from type of C. ladpennis] Figs. 8-14. (8-11) Chiysonotomyia longiclava Shafee & Rizvi, Female: 8, antenna; 9, fore wing; 10, head; 11, thorax. (12-14) Chiysonotomyia yownisi Hayat & Parveen, Female: 12, fore wing; 13, head with antenna and mandible shown separately; 14, thora.x, [Drawn from type of Neochrysocharis melaUicvs Khan & Shefee] Figs. 15-19. (15-16) Chrysonolomyiapuhipennis (Khan & Shafee), Female: 15, antenna; 16, part of fore wing, with distal veins enlarged and shown separately. (17-19) Euderomphak longipedicelus Shafee, Rizvi & Khan, Female: 17, antenna; 18, part of fore wing; 19, thorax. ••igs. 20-24 Enleclonasliclnis poslmarginalis (Shafee, Rizvi & Khan), Female: 20, antenna; 21, fore wing; 22, head frontal; 23, head dorsal; 24, thorax. •igs. 25-32. (25-26) Entedon ihoubalensis (Chishti & Shafee), Female: 25, antenna, with apex of clava enlarged; 26, part of fore wing. (27-28) Parahonsmemis infuscalipennis (Shafee et al.), Female: 27, antenna, with anelli and apex of clava enlarged; 28, part of fore wing. (29-32) Parahorlsmemis poiuUchenyensis (Shafee & Rizvi), Female: 29. antenna; 30, hind femur; 31, part of fore wing; 32, fore wing distal veins, enlarged. Mgs. 33-40. (33-36) Chiysocharis imphalemis (Chishti & Shafee), Female: 33, head; 34, antenna; 35, part of fore wing; 36, thorax. (37-38) Entedon gimturensis (Shafee & Rizvi), Female: 37, part of fore wing; 38, pedicel, Fl and clava. (39-40) Entedon longlcorpus (Khan & Shafee), Female: 39, antenna, with anelli and apex of clava enlarged; 40, distal veins of fore wing. Mgs. 41-45. Pediobiiis madwaiensis Shafee & Rizvi, Female: 41, funicle and clava; 42, part of fore wing; 43, thorax; 44, head; 45, gaster.