An Annotated Checklist of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) in Taiwan, with Descriptions of Five New Species

全文

(1)台灣農業研究 (J. Taiwan Agric. Res.) 67(2):113–165 (2018) DOI: 10.6156/JTAR.201806_67(2).0002. Research Article. An Annotated Checklist of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) in Taiwan, with Descriptions of Five New Species Serguei V. Triapitsyn1,*. Abstract Triapitsyn, S. V. 2018. An annotated checklist of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) in Taiwan, with descriptions of five new species. J. Taiwan Agric. Res. 67(2):113–165.. A checklist of the fairyflies (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) known from Taiwan is presented, annotated with information on their distribution and host associations. There are 28 genera and 60 named species, among them 13 genera and 33 species are new records for Taiwan. The five new species described here are Acmopolynema berezovskiyi sp. nov., Anagroidea montana sp. nov., Camptoptera jthuberi sp. nov., Mymar alishan sp. nov., and Ooctonus kokozai sp. nov. The male of Eubroncus orientalis Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972 (the type species of the genus Eubroncus Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972) is redescribed, and its previously unknown female is described based on specimens from Sulawesi Island, Indonesia; an updated world key to the species of Eubroncus is provided. Eubroncus hani Jin and Li, 2014 syn. nov. is synonymized under Eubroncus indicus Hayat and Khan, 2009, whose male is described here based on specimens from Nepal; the previously-unknown males of Cosmocomoidea tenuis Xu, Lin and Hu, 2016 and Eubroncus tibetanus Jin and Li, 2014 are also described based on specimens from Taiwan and Japan, respectively. As egg parasitoids, some members of the family are important as natural enemies of agricultural pests, such as rice planthoppers and leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Delphacidae and Cicadellidae, respectively); previous records of these in Taiwan are critically analyzed. Key words: Mymaridae, List, New species, Taiwan, Egg parasitoid.. INTRODUCTION Mymaridae, or fairyflies (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) are a rather large, speciose family whose members are, with very few exceptions, egg parasitoids of various insects. As such, some species are important as natural enemies of agricultural pests, such as rice planthoppers and leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Delphacidae and Cicadellidae) (Triapitsyn 2002, 2013a, 2013c). Taguchi (1974, 1975, 1977a, 1977b, 1978) published on taxonomy of the genera Camptoptera Foerster, 1856,. Himopolynema Taguchi, 1977, Mymar Curtis, 1829, Palaeoneura Waterhouse, 1915, and Stephanodes Enock, 1909, which contain descriptions of several new species from Taiwan. Unfortunately, the entire Dr. Hidenari Taguchi collection of Mymaridae, which was supposed to be deposited in the Entomological Laboratory, College of Agriculture, Ehime University, Matsuyama, Japan (EUMJ), has never made it there, being lost from his home, including the types (Huber 2003; Triapitsyn 2014b, 2015a). More recently, Triapitsyn (2015a) and Triapitsyn et al. (2017) added several new species to. Received: June 1, 2017; Accepted: October 27, 2017. * Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] 1 Principal Museum Scientist, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA..

(2) 114. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. the knowledge of the mymarid fauna of Taiwan and designated neotypes for the species of Himopolynema described in Taguchi (1977a). The same remains to be done for his species of Camptoptera and Palaeoneura, but freshly collected, matching specimens of these genera from or near their type localities in Taiwan are unfortunately lacking. Tian et al. (2006) reported a surprisingly low generic diversity index for the Mymaridae of Taiwan which they suggested, along with Tibet’s, to be significantly lower than that for Fujian, China; however, that is certainly a misleading conclusion because the mymarid fauna of Taiwan was, at that time (and still is, despite some recent progress), poorly known and is, like that of Fujian, mostly Oriental, with some Palaearctic and other elements. One would expect, due to the large size of the island, the diversity of its habitats, and relative proximity to mainland China, greater diversity than reported, and some endemism (particularly in the mountains). The ability of fairyflies to be dispersed by wind would also mitigate that, so more likely, the mymarid fauna of Taiwan could be almost as diverse as that of nearby Fujian (as listed by Lin & Xu 2003), at least at the generic level. However, thorough collecting efforts of the family in Taiwan have been lacking recently, so few fresh specimens of good quality are currently available to properly assess the true diversity. For that reason, and also because one could expect at least five more genera to occur in Taiwan besides the 28 genera listed here (13 newly recorded), providing a key to the mymarid genera of Taiwan would be pointless at this time; for the time being, these can be mostly identified using the available generic keys for the Oriental region (Subba Rao & Hayat 1983) and China (Lin & Xu 2000), as well as for the Palaearctic region (Triapitsyn & Huber 2000) for specimens collected at high altitudes. During the 1950s–1970s, Kwei-Shui Lin (1921–2002), a taxonomist and prolific collector of parasitic Hymenoptera, who worked. at the Taiwan Agricultural Research Insti tute (TARI) in Taipei City before moving to Taichung, captured almost 3,000 mymarids throughout Taiwan (the bulk are from Taipei City and its environs). Unfortunately, these represent just a few genera (most specimens belong to those in the tribe Gonatocerini, some of which I sorted to genus and species) and were almost all rather poorly mounted, without proper clearing and positioning, on individual slides. These are all labeled in English and kept in about 30 slide boxes in the insect collection of the TARI, Wufeng, Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China, besides just a few air-dried, dry-mounted specimens on points. His collection has proven to be an invaluable resource for this study, and also for my previous publication on Himopolynema of Taiwan (Triapitsyn 2015a). Lin (1974), Miura et al. (1981), and Chen (1993) reported on egg parasitoids of the rice leafhoppers and planthoppers in Taiwan; Chen & Yu (1989) studied Anagrus Haliday, 1833 egg parasitoids of rice brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stål, 1854) (Delphacidae). Chu & Hirashima (1981) summarized the earlier Taiwanese literature on the natural enemies of the rice leafhoppers and planthoppers, while Hirashima (1981) provided information on their survey in Taiwan. Unfortunately, almost no voucher specimens from these earlier studies in Taiwan could be found in the museum collections there, so with a few exceptions I was unable to verify their identity with confidence; it seems likely that most of them were misidentified at species level. Particularly, the voucher specimens of Miura et al. (1981) from Taiwan could not be located in the Kyushu University Museum (formerly in the Entomological Laboratory), Kyushu University, Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Japan (KUEC) (Dr. T. Mita, personal communication), so I was able to examine just a few specimens from that study which had been sent by Dr. T. Miura for identification to Dr. J. T. Huber to the Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arach-.

(3) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. nids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (CNC) (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2004a). Per Dr. K. Kitamura (Shimane University, Matsue, Japan), Dr. Tadashi Miura’s collection had been kept at his home but, according to his son Dr. Kazuki Miura, it was lost a long time ago (Dr. T. Mita, personal communication).. MATERIALS AND METHODS Most specimens were identified during visits to TARI in August 2013 and October 2 0 1 6 . A d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l f r o m Ta i w a n i s deposited in the CNC (specimens had been sorted to genus by Dr. John T. Huber who generously loaned them to me) and the Entomology Research Museum, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, California, USA (UCRC). All measurements (given in mm, as length or, for the wings, as length:width) and photographs were taken at UCRC from slide-mounted specimens using an Axioskop 2 Plus compound microscope (Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC., Thornwood, NY) and an Auto-Montage system (Syncroscopy, Cambridge, UK); the digital images were processed using Adobe Photoshop. Terminology for morphological features follows Gibson (1997). Abbreviations used are mps, multiporous plate sensillum or sensilla (longitudinal sensillum or sensilla, or sensory ridge or ridges) on the antennal flagellar segments, and F, funicular segment of the female antenna or flagellomere of the male antenna. New records for Taiwan are marked by an asterisk (*).. AN ALPHABETICAL CHECKLIST OF THE TAIWANESE MYMARIDAE *Acmopolynema berezovskiyi Triapitsyn, sp. nov. (Figs. 1–7) Type material. Holotype female (TARI) on slide (Fig. 1), labeled: 1. “CHINA: S.TAIWA N K w e i - t z u - c h i o H e n g C h u n g 2 2 – 2 9 .. 115. V.1965 KSLin”; 2. “TARI Mounted by V. V. Berezovskiy 2013 in Canada balsam”; 3. [magenta] “Acmopolynema berezovskiyi Triapitsyn HOLOTYPE ♀.” The type locality is Kueitzuchiao, Hengchun, Kenting National Park, Pingtung Co., Taiwan. The holotype was remounted from a point; it is complete, dissected under 3 coverslips. Description. Female (holotype). Body mostly brown except petiole and apical gastral terga light brown; scape and pedicel light brown; F1–F3 brown, F4–F6 pale yellowish, and clava dark brown; legs mostly brown except apical half or so of metafemur and metatibia and also apical tarsomeres dark brown, other tarsomeres light brown. Head as in Fig. 2. Antenna (Fig. 4). Scape with cross-ridges, 1.9 times as long as wide in lateral view (excluding radicle); pedicel shorter than F1; F2 longest funicular segment, F3 much longer than the following funicular segments; F4– F5 subequal in length, F6 the widest funicular segment; all funicular segments without mps; clava 2.7 times as long as wide, with 9 mps. Mesosoma (Fig. 5) smooth. Pronotum mediolongitudinally subdivided only in its anterior half, with several pairs of short setae. Mesoscutum slightly wider than long, a little longer than scutellum. Axilla with 1 weak seta and 3 foveae along its margin with scutellum. Scutellum with a row of small frenal foveae; scutellar placoid sensilla close to anterior margin of scutellum. Propodeum (Fig. 3) with V-shaped submedian carinae not reaching its anterior margin, extending only to about 2/3 of its length, and with a very short, inconspicuous median carina at anterior margin only. Fore wing (Fig. 7) 3.6 times as long as wide; marginal vein with 1 dorsal macrochaeta; longest marginal seta about 0.25 times maximum width of wing; disc with 3 brown bands: first band short and behind and a little beyond marginal vein, second band the widest and about in the middle of disc, and third band at wing’s apex (extending to its apical mar-.

(4) 116. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Figs. 1–7. Acmopolynema berezovskiyi, female (holotype): 1. Slide; 2. Head in frontal view; 3. Propodeum; 4. Antenna; 5. Mesosoma; 6. Metasoma; 7. Fore and hind wings.. gin and occupying about 0.18 of wing’s total length); approximately basal half of disc bare, the remainder of disc sparsely setose, with short modified setae of type F (Schauff 1981) mostly on the middle brown band and also a few on the hyaline area between the middle and apical brown bands, normal setae in apical 3/10 of disc, somewhat arranged in 3 irregular rows but more numerous at wing’s apex. Hind wing (Fig. 7) 22.5 times as long as wide; disc hyaline, longest marginal seta 2.8 times maximum width of wing. Protibia with 2 rows of 9 or 11 conical. sensilla; metacoxa and metafemur with reticulate sculpture. Metasoma (Fig. 6). Petiole shorter than metacoxa. Ovipositor occupying almost entire length of gaster, markedly exserted beyond its apex (by 0.35 times own total length), 1.7 times length of metatibia. Measurements (mm). Mesosoma 0.683; mesoscutum: 0.24; scutellum: 0.184; petiole 0.203; gaster 0.768; ovipositor 1.076. Antenna: scape (excluding radicle) 0.107; pedicel 0.07; F1 0.097; F2 0.182; F3 0.158; F4 0.07; F5 0.07; F6 0.07; clava 0.273. Fore wing 1.47.

(5) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. : 0.403; longest marginal seta 0.1. Hind wing 1.168 : 0.052; longest marginal seta 0.147. Mesotibia: 0.455; metatibia: 0.627. Male. Unknown. Diagnosis. A. berezovskiyi is similar to the eastern Palaearctic and Oriental species Acmopolynema tachikawai Taguchi, 1971, described from Japan and also known from India, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka, to which it keys in Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2007). A modified couplet for that key to females of the Oriental and Australasian species of Acmopolynema is provided here to differentiate this new species from A. tachikawai, as follows. 1 Fore wing disc with a conspicuous apical dark band, occupying at most about 1/5 of wing’s length and extending to its apical margin (as in Fig. 7) ............... 1’ – Fore wing disc either hyaline or with different color patterns ...................... 2 1’(1) F2 and F3 notably darker than F1, F6 dark brown (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2007, p. 10, Fig. 1); apical brown band on fore wing disc occupying about 0.13 of wing’s total length ............................ ................. A. tachikawai Taguchi, 1971 –. F2 and F3 concolorous with F1, F6 pale yellowish (Fig. 4); apical brown band on fore wing disc occupying about 0.18 of wing’s total length ............................... ....................... A. berezovskiyi, sp. nov. Etymology. The species is named after Mr. Vladimir Vasil’evich Berezovskiy (Laguna Hills, California, USA), fellow fairyfly taxonomist with special interest in the genus Acmopolynema Ogloblin, 1946 and a dedicated volunteer at the UCRC. Hosts. Unknown.. Acmopolynema bimaculatum Subba Rao, 1989 A. bimaculatum Subba Rao: Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2007: 22 (Pingtung Co.). Material examined. Taiwan: Chiayi Co., Chiayi, 27.v.1970, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Paomenszu (2 km S of Keelung), 11.x.1957,. 117. F. L . Ye ( 1 f e m a l e , TA R I ) . P i n g t u n g C o . , Pingtung, 10.iii.1970, K. S. Lin, in rice field (1 female, TARI). Taipei City: 15–30.ix.1963, K. S. Lin (2 females, TARI); 16–31.x.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Tsaoshan (20 km N of Taipei City): 5.x.1957, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); 28.x.1957, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). *Acmopolynema indochinense (Soyka, 1956) Material examined. Taiwan: Pingtung Co., Kenting National Park, Hengchun, Kueitzuchiao (as “Kuraru, Heng Chung”), 22–29. v.1965, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Taipei City: 1–12.vii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); viii.1963, K. S. Lin (2 females, TARI); iii.1970, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); x.1972, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Extralimital material examined. Brunei, Belait District, Rumah Teraja, 4°16.983’N 114°25.372’E, 40 m, 2.vii.2010, J. Mottern (1 female, UCRC). China, Guangdong, Cuangzhou, v.1983, Z. Bou ček [1 female, Natu ral History Museum, London, England, UK (BMNH)]. Indonesia, Bali Island, Tabanan, Baturiti Candikuning, 25–27.viii.1999, M. I. Wibawa [2 females, R. M. Bohart Museum of Entomology, University of California, Davis, California, USA (UCDC)]. Thailand, Surat Thani, Sok River, N of Hwy 401, 8°54’26’’N, 98°31’59’’E, 20–21.ii.2005, D. Yanega (1 male, UCRC). Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City (as Saigon), xi.1949, J. Barbier [1 female, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France (MNHN)]. Comments. A. indochinense is newly recorded here from Brunei. Acmopolynema longicoxillum Xu and Lin, 2002 A. longicoxillum Xu and Lin: Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2007: 35 (Taipei). Acmopolynema orchidea Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2007 A. orchidea Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2007: 31–32 [Orchid Island (Lan Yü)]..

(6) 118. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. Acmopolynema spp. Material examined. Taiwan: Nantou Co., Ren’ai Township, Wushe, 1,150 m, 15.v.1983, H. Townes [1 male, American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, Florida, USA (AEI)]. Orchid Island (Lan Yü), 200 m, 5–9.vii.1991, C. K. Starr (1 female, CNC). Pingtung Co., Kenting National Park: Hengchun, Kueitzuc h i a o ( a s “K u r a r u , H e n g C h u n g ”) , 2 2 – 2 9 . v.1965, K. S. Lin (1 female, 1 male, TARI); 230 m, 5–11.v.1991, C. K. Starr, S. M. Wu (3 males, CNC). Taipei City: Kuanyinshan (W of Taipei City), 5.x.1957, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); Tsaoshan (20 km N of Taipei City), 1.v.1955, K. S. Lin (1 male, TARI); 6–15. xii.1957, K. S. Lin (1 male, TARI); viii.1963, K. S. Lin (3 males, TARI). Alaptus immaturus Perkins, 1905 A. immaturus Perkins: Triapitsyn, 2017a: 35 (“Peishankeng”, Taichung). Hosts in Taiwan: undetermined Psocoptera on various plants (Triapitsyn 2017a). Alaptus sp. Material examined. Taiwan, Nantou Co., Pilu-Chi Hydrological Station, ca. 24.23°N 121.3°E, ca. 2,300 m, 15–30.vi.1997, M. M. Yang (1 female, UCRC). *Anagroidea marina Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2002 (Fig. 19) Material examined. Taiwan, Taichung, Hsuchsan (above Shan Liu), Gieu Hut, 3,200 m, 8–10.v.1991, A. Smetana (2 females, CNC). Extralimital material examined. China, Sichuan, 20 km N of Sabde, 29°35’N 102°23’E, “3,200 m” (according to Google Earth, the actual altitude at these coordinates is 2,488 m), 12–14.vii.1998 (3 females, CNC). Japan: Hokkaido Island, Hokkaido Prefecture, 20 km N of Akkeshi, Bekanbeushi Marsh, 100 m, 15.viii.1996, L. Masner (1 female, CNC). Honshu Island: Aichi Prefecture, Shitara, Uradani, 900 m, 27.vi–3.vii.1994, K. Yamagishi, beech forest (1 female, CNC).. Iwate Prefecture, Kawai, Yoshibezawa, 1,050 m, 12–17.viii.1991, A. Smetana (1 female, CNC). Kyushu Island, Fukuoka Prefecture, Mt. Tachibana: 6–12.v.1979, K. Yamagishi (1 brachypterous female, CNC); 20.v–9.vi.1979, K. Yamagishi (1 female, CNC). Republic of Korea (South Korea), Kangwon-do, Pyengchang, Donam, Byungnae, 24.ix.1998, J.-Y. Choi (1 female, UCRC). Russia, Primorskiy kray, Ussuriyskiy rayon, Gornotayozhnoye, 12.vii.2000, M. V. Michailovskaya (1 male, UCRC). Comments. A. marina was recently reported from Tibet and Yunnan, China by Jin and Li (2016); it is newly recorded here from Japan and Republic of Korea. *Anagroidea montana Triapitsyn, sp. nov. (Figs. 8–18) Type material. Holotype female (CNC) on slide (Fig. 8), labeled: 1. “TAIWAN: Nantou Meifeng, YPT, 16.I-20.II.1991 S. C. Lin & C. K. Starr”; 2. “CNCI Mounted at UCR/ERM by V. V. Berezovskiy 2012 in Canada balsam”; 3. [magenta] “Anagroidea montana Triapitsyn HOLOTYPE ♀.” The holotype is complete, dissected under 4 coverslips. Paratypes: Taiwan: Hualien Co., Tayuling, 12–15.ix.1980, K. S. Lin, C. H. Wang (1 female on point, TARI). Nantou Co.: “Forestry Station,” 7.v.1997 (1 female on point, UCRC). Meifeng: 2,150 m, viii.1984, K. S. Lin, K. C. Chou (1 female on point, TARI); 16.i–20.ii.1991, S. C. Lin, C. K. Starr, yellow pan trap (1 male on slide, CNC). Additional material examined. China, Beijing, Mentougou District, Xiaolongmen Station, 39°59.22’N 115°31.48’E, 1,095 m, 28.vii.2002, G. Melika (1 female, UCRC). This non-type, extralimital, dry-mounted specimen is more similar in color to A. montana than to A. marina, so it is provisionally identified as the former species. Description. Female (holotype). Body mostly brown except trabeculae and petiole dark brown; radicle light brown and remainder of antenna brown; legs mostly light brown ex-.

(7) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 119. 8 9. 10. 11 Figs. 8–11. Anagroidea montana, female (holotype): 8. Slide; 9. Antenna; 10. Mesosoma and metasoma; 11. Fore and hind wings.. cept meso- and metacoxa notably lighter. Head (Fig. 12) with transverse trabecula slightly above mid level of eyes. Vertex transversely striate, face almost smooth; toruli slightly above lower level of eyes. Mandible bidentate, its length about 0.2 times of head height. Antenna (Fig. 9) with radicle narrow and smooth, remainder of scape 5.1 times as long as wide and faintly sculptured; pedicel slightly longer than F1 (the longest funicular segment); F2–F6 subequal in length (F2 the shortest and narrowest among them), F1 much longer than. wide, F2 longer than wide, F3–F5 slightly longer than wide, and F6 slightly wider than long; F1 and F2 without mps, F3–F6 apparently each with 2 mps; clava 3.4 times as long as wide, with 7 mps, almost as long as funicle. Mesosoma (Fig. 10) with pronotum faintly sculptured, narrow medially in dorsal view and with several strong setae. Mesoscutum with reticulate sculpture in anterior half or so and with less conspicuous, faint cell-like sculpture in posterior half or so, with a pair of strong adnotaular setae and a strong seta at posterolateral angle. Axilla faintly sculptured, with a.

(8) 120. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Figs. 12–17. Anagroidea montana: 12. Female head in frontal view (holotype); 13. Male mesosoma (paratype); 14. Male antenna (paratype); 15. Male fore wing (paratype); 16. Base of male hind wing (paratype); 17. Male genitalia (paratype).. very strong seta. Scutellum faintly sculptured, a little longer than mesoscutum, frenal line with a row of large but inconspicuous foveae; scutellar placoid sensilla very close to anterior margin and touching each other. Dorsellum reticulate. Propodeum with a pattern of submedian carinae and reticulate sculpture (mainly medially at its anterior margin), and with one pair of weak setae mediolaterally. Propodeal spiracle small. Mesophragma broadly U-shaped, not reaching posterior margin of propodeum. Fore wing (Fig. 11) 3.5 times as long as wide; disc faintly infuscate throughout (brownish), more so behind marginal vein; base of disc with a large bare area behind and partially beyond marginal and stigmal veins, and apical half of disc densely setose; longest marginal seta about 0.25 times maximum width of wing.. Hind wing (Fig. 11) 7.8 times as long as wide; disc slightly infuscate and densely, more or less uniformly, setose beyond venation, with about 12–13 irregular rows of setae in the broadest part; longest marginal seta about 1.0 times maximum width of wing. Coxae faintly reticulate. Metasoma (Fig. 10). Petiole about 3 times as wide as long. Gaster shorter than mesosoma; first gastral tergum and first gastral sternum with sclerotized ridges and carinae; ovipositor short, occupying about half of gaster length, not exserted beyond gastral apex, about 0.6 times length of metatibia. Measurements of the holotype (mm). Mesosoma 0.344; mesoscutum: 0.088; scutellum: 0.102; petiole 0.022; gaster 0.283; ovipositor 0.142. Antenna: scape (excluding radicle) 0.172;.

(9) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 18. 121. 0.5 mm. 19 Figs. 18–19. Anagroidea spp.: 18. Anagroidea montana, female habitus in dorsolateral view (paratype, Forestry Station, Nantou Co., Taiwan); 19. Anagroidea marina, female propodeum (Gornotayozhnoye, Primorskiy kray, Russia).. pedicel 0.07; F1 0.06; F2 0.03; F3 0.036; F4 0.033; F5 0.036; F6 0.035; clava 0.228. Fore wing 0.833 : 0.237; longest marginal seta 0.06. Hind wing 0.8 : 0.102; longest marginal seta 0.1. Mesotibia: 0.23; metatibia: 0.245. Variation (dry-mounted paratype from “Forestry Station” in Nantou Co.). Body length 0.99 mm. Clava only a little darker than funicle; gaster more or less concolorous with head and mesosoma (brown). Male (paratype). Similar to female except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna and genitalia, and the following. Head with less pronounced, rather faint sculpture on vertex and face. Antenna (Fig. 14) brown, longer than body, with scape about 6 times as long as wide, slightly longitudinally striate; flagellomeres roughly subequal. in length (F1 the longest), longer than wide, each with several mps. Mesosoma (Fig. 13) less sculptured than in female. Fore wing (Fig. 15) 3.6 times as long as wide; longest marginal seta 3.8 times maximum wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 16) 8.5 times as long as wide; longest marginal seta 1.1 times maximum width of wing. Gaster almost entirely dark brown. Genitalia (Fig. 17) length 0.133 mm. Diagnosis. The new species keys to couplet 4 in Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2002), together with A. marina and Anagroidea himalayana (Mani and Saraswat, 1973). A modified couplet for their key is therefore is given below, which applies to females only. In addition to the characters mentioned in it, female A. montana differs from that of A. marina, to which it is most similar, in the relatively light-.

(10) 122. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. er color of the funicle, which is light brown to brown and contrastingly lighter than the clava. 4(3) Base of fore wing disc with a well-defined row of 6 or 7 setae very close t o s u b m a r g i n a l v e i n ( Tr i a p i t s y n & Berezovskiy 2002, p. 5, Fig. 5) ............. ....... A. himalayana Mani and Saraswat, 1973 – Base of fore wing disc with several setae only between submarginal vein and the long submedian row of setae (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2002, p.9, Figs. 9 and 11) ........................................... 5 5(4) Head and mesosoma dark brown; F1 slightly longer than (or at most about as long as) pedicel; propodeum sculptured as in Fig. 19 ......................................... ....... A. marina Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2002 – Head and mesosoma brown (Fig. 18); F1 slightly shorter than pedicel; propodeum sculptured as in Fig. 10 ......................... ............................. A. montana, sp. nov. Etymology. The species name is an adjective referring to its occurrence in the mountains. Hosts. Unknown. Comments. The following specimens of A. himalayana were examined: Nepal: Bagmati Zone, Phulchowki (also spelled as Phulcoki or Phulchoki), 2,600 m, 13.x.1983, A. Smetana, screen sweeping in old oak forest (1 female, CNC). Dhawalagiri (Dhaulagiri) Zone, Goropani Pass (also spelled as Ghoropani, Gorepani, or Ghorepani), 2,850 m, 5.x.1983, A. Smetana, screen sweeping (1 female, CNC). L a n g t a n g , 1 , 9 5 0 m , 1 3 . i v. 1 9 8 5 ( 1 f e m a l e , CNC). This species is newly recorded from Nepal. *Anagrus (Anagrella) sp. Material examined. Taiwan, Pingtung Co., Kenting National Park, 210 m, 11–17.v.1991, C. K. Starr, S. M. Wu, pan trap in secondary forest (1 female, CNC). Comments. This specimen, which possibly. represents an undescribed species, is similar to Anagrus (Anagrella) albiclava Chiappini and Lin, 1998 in having a white clava of the female antenna, from which it differs by presence of an incomplete row of setae in the middle of the fore wing disc (absent in A. albiclava). Anagrus (Anagrus) frequens Perkins, 1905 ?Anagrus flaveolus Perkins Waterhouse, 1913: Chen and Yu, 1989: 460–461 (illustration of a female antenna, key). A. (Anagrus) frequens Perkins: Triapitsyn and Beardsley, 2000: 33 (no locality data except “Formosa”). Material examined. Taiwan: Taipei City, City Park, 19.xii.1990–8.i.1991, J. T. Chao (1 female, CNC). Taichung, Wufeng, TARI, 2 4 °0 1 ’5 2 . 4 ’’N 1 2 0 °4 1 ’3 4 . 2 ’’E , 7 6 m : 5 – 7 . x.2016, S. V. Triapitsyn, yellow pan traps in wild rice field (1 female, UCRC); 6–11.x.2016, S. V. Triapitsyn, H.-T. Shih, Malaise trap in wild rice field (3 females, UCRC). Host in Taiwan. Perkinsiella sp. (Delphacidae) (Triapitsyn & Beardsley 2000). Comments. The female antenna illustrated by Chen & Yu (1989, p. 460, Fig. 11) under “A. flaveolus” definitely belongs to a species from the atomus species group of the nominate subgenus of Anagrus and fits those specimens of A. frequens that lack mps on F3; indeed, among the three specimens recently collected in the wild rice field at TARI, one female has a mps on F3 on both antennae, one only on one antenna, and one lacks mps on both antennae. Anagrus (Anagrus) nilaparvatae Pang and Wang, 1985 ?Anagrus sp.: Lin 1974: 93–96 [Pingtung, Taipei; key, illustration of a fore wing (consistent with that of A. nilaparvatae)], 99 (descriptive notes and history of previous records and misidentifications in Taiwan). A. incarnatus Haliday, 1833: Chen and Yu, 1989: 459–461 (Pingtung, Taichung, Taipei; illustrations, key); Chen, 1993:.

(11) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 267–273 (Changhua Co., Chiayi Co., Nantou Co., Taichung); Chiappini et al., 1996: 560 (indicated probable misidentifications). ?Anagrus flaveolus Waterhouse, 1913: Chu and Hirashima, 1981: 35–36; Sahad and Hirashima, 1984: 57 (Chiayi Co.); Chiappini et al., 1996: 586 (indicated previous misidentifications). A. (Anagrus) nilaparvatae Pang and Wang: Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2004a: 21 (“Antei”). Material examined. Taiwan, Taichung, Wufeng, TARI, 24°01’52.4’’N 120°41’34.2’’E, 76 m: 5–7.x.2016, S. V. Triapitsyn, yellow pan traps in wild rice field (1 female, UCRC); 6–11.x.2016, S. V. Triapitsyn, H.-T. Shih, Malaise trap in wild rice field (5 females, UCRC). Hosts in Taiwan. Laodelphax striatel(Fallén, 1826) (Chen 1993) and N. lugens la (Stål, 1854) (Delphacidae) (Lin 1974; Chu & Hirashima 1981; Chen & Yu 1989; Chen 1993; Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2004a), as well as Nephotettix cincticeps (Uhler, 1896) (Cicadellidae) (Lin 1974; Chu & Hirashima 1981). Comments. It is possible that Anagrus sp. mentioned by Lin (1974) was a complex of several species although most likely the bulk of those were A. nilaparvatae, but I could not locate any of his specimens identified as such in TARI to verify that; in fact, I could not find any specimens of Anagrus there despite conducting thorough searches both in 2013 and 2016. It is also possible that these had been borrowed by Dr. Bing-huei Chen during preparation of his publication with the redescription of A. incarnatus from Taiwan (Chen & Yu 1989) and then never returned to the collection so after his retirement these got lost (or misplaced) somehow. Their detailed illustrations of the latter species, combined with a redescription (which is not without some mistakes), leave little doubt that they dealt with A. nilaparvatae. As indicated by Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2004a, p. 21), A. incarnatus of Sahad and Hi-. 123. rashima, 1984: 46–50 definitely belongs to A. nilaparvatae [also see discussion in Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2004a) and Triapitsyn (2013c, 2015b)] while A. flaveolus of Sahad and Hirashima, 1984: 55–58 likely belongs to those specimens of A. nilaparvatae that are lacking a mps on F3 of the female antenna. Without access to their missing voucher specimens, the identity of A. nigriventris Girault, 1911 of Sahad and Hirashima, 1984: 52–55 from Japan and Republic of Korea remains unclear; it is definitely not the true A. nigriventris which is a New World species also known from the Hawaiian Islands (Triapitsyn 2015b) because according to the illustration in Sahad & Hirashima (1984: 54, their Fig. 18B), their “A. nigriventris” lacks adnotaular setae on the midlobe of the mesoscutum which are always present in the true A. nigriventris. Thus their species belongs to the very difficult A. incarnatus complex of Anagrus discussed by Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2004a) and Triapitsyn (2015b). Anagrus (Anagrus) setosus Chiappini and Lin, 1998 A. (Anagrus) setosus Chiappini and Lin: Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2004a: 9 (Nantou Co.). Anagrus (Anagrus) sp. Material examined. Taiwan, Taichung, Wufeng, TARI, 24°01’52.4’’N 120°41’34.2’’E, 76 m, 6–11.x.2016, S. V. Triapitsyn, H.-T. Shih, Malaise trap in wild rice field (1 female, UCRC). Comments. This interesting specimen, which likely represents an undescribed species, belongs to the A. brocheri Schulz, 1910 complex of the incarnatus species group of the nominate subgenus of Anagrus (Triapitsyn 2015b) and is most similar to (and yet different from in the fore wing chaetotaxy) A. (Anagrus) insularis Dozier, 1936, which is known from the Hawaiian Islands (Triapitsyn & Beardsley 2000)..

(12) 124. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. Anagrus (Paranagrus) optabilis (Perkins, 1905) A. (Paranagrus) optabilis (Perkins): Miura et al., 1981: 44–49 (Taipei and numerous localities in central and southern Taiwan); Sahad and Hirashima, 1984: 68 (Chiasien, Chiayi Co., Tainan); Chen and Yu, 1989: 460–461 (illustration, key); Chiappini et al., 1996: 556; Triapitsyn and Beardsley, 2000: 29 (no locality data except “Formosa”); Triapitsyn and Berezovskiy, 2004a: 7 (“Antei”). Hosts in Taiwan. L. striatella (Fallén, 1826) (Miura et al. 1981), N. lugens (Stål, 1 8 5 4 ) ( M i u r a e t a l . 1 9 8 1 ; Tr i a p i t s y n & Berezovskiy 2004a), Perkinsiella sp. (Triapitsyn & Beardsley 2000), and Sogatella furcifera (Horváth, 1899) (Miura et al. 1981) (Delphacidae). Anaphes nipponicus Kuwayama, 1932 A. nipponicus Kuwayama: Thompson, 1958: 568 (record needs confirmation). Anaphes spp. Material examined. Taiwan, Nantou Co.: “Forestry Station,” 7.v.1997 (2 males, UCRC). Pilu-Chi Hydrological Station, ca. 24.23°N 121.3°E, ca. 2,300 m, 15–30.vi.1997, M. M. Yang (3 females, UCRC). Comments. The earlier reports of Anaphes sp. from Taiwan from eggs of N. cincticeps and N. lugens, summarized by Chu & Hirashima (1981), are without any doubt erroneous host records because species of the genus Anaphes Haliday, 1833 do not parasitize eggs of either Cicadellidae or Delphacidae. The examined specimens from Nantou Co. belong to two different species: the females have a much wider fore wing than the males. Arescon sparsiciliatus Jin and Li, 2016 A. ?sparsiciliatus Jin and Li: Triapitsyn, 2016: 146 (Nantou Co.). Material examined. Taiwan: Taichung, Wufeng, TARI, 24°01’52.4’’N 120°41’34.2’’E, 76 m, 6–11.x.2016, S. V. Triapitsyn, H.-T.. Shih, Malaise trap in wild rice field (1 female, UCRC). Taipei City, viii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 male, TARI). Arescon spp. Material examined. Taiwan: Orchid Island (Lan Yü), 200 m, 5–9.vii.1991, C. K. Starr (1 male, CNC). Taichung, Wufeng, TARI, 24°01’52.4’’N 120°41’34.2’’E, 76 m, 6–11. x.2016, S. V. Triapitsyn, H.-T. Shih, Malaise trap in wild rice field (1 male, UCRC). *Australomymar ?gressitti (Doutt, 1955) Material examined. Taiwan, Pingtung Co., Kenting National Park, 5–8.iv.1991, C. K. Starr, S. M. Wu (1 female, CNC, determined by J. T. Huber). Comments. Indeed, this specimen fits the original description of A. gressitti in most aspects except the exserted part of the ovipositor seems to be relatively longer, about 0.4 mm and about the same length as gaster, whereas in the holotype of this species from Tol Island [Chuuk (Truk) Islands, Caroline Islands, Chuuk (Truk) State, Federated States of Micronesia] the exserted part of the ovipositor is 0.28 mm and about the same length as mesosoma (Doutt 1955). *Australomymar spp. M a t e r i a l e x a m i n e d . Ta i w a n : N a n t o u Co.: Meifeng, 2,130 m, 10–17.vii.1993, A. Smetana (1 female, CNC). Sun Moon Lake, Tehuache, 800–900 m, 6.vi.1990, J. M. Heraty (1 male, CNC). Zhushan, Shan Lin Xi, 1,600 m, 16.v.1990, L. LeSage (3 females, 2 males, CNC). Pingtung Co., Tengchih, Medium Altitude Experimental Station, 23°05.75’N 120°47.37’E, 1,660 m, L. Masner: 3–5.vi.2008 (1 female, 1 male, CNC); 4.vi.2008 (2 males, CNC); 7–9.vi.2008 (1 female, CNC). Comments. These specimens were identified as belonging to this genus by Dr. J. T. Huber. Most of those from Nantou Co. have two transverse brownish bands on the fore wing disc in both sexes and thus seem to be somewhat similar to A. vietnamicum Narendran and.

(13) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. Anjana, 2013 from Vietnam which also has this feature, particularly in female sex; clava of the female antenna is white. Unfortunately, the antennae of the single known female of the latter species (the holotype) are incomplete (Narendran & Anjana 2013), so the color of its clava is unknown. The other specimens from Taiwan likely belong to two undescribed species. *Camptoptera jthuberi Triapitsyn, sp. nov. (Figs. 20–30) Type material. Holotype female (CNC). 125. on slide (Fig. 20), labeled: 1. “TAIWAN: Nantou Hsien, Shan-Lin-Chi 1,600m, 16.V.1990 L. LeSage, primary forest, FIT & pans”; 2. “CNC Mounted by V. V. Berezovskiy 2017 in Canada balsam”; 3. [magenta] “Camptoptera jthuberi Triapitsyn HOLOTYPE ♀.” The type locality is Shan Lin Xi, Zhushan, in Nantou Co. The holotype (Fig. 21) was remounted from a card; it is almost complete (missing one fore leg) and dissected under 3 coverslips. Paratypes: Taiwan: Kaohsiung City, Shanping, 640 m, 11–20. iv.1988, R. L. Davidson, J. E. Rawlins, C. W. Young, pan traps (1 male on card and 1 male. 20. 0.1 mm. 21. 22. 23. Figs. 20–23. Camptoptera jthuberi, female: 20. Slide (holotype); 21. Habitus in dorsolateral view (dry-mounted holotype prior to being slide-mounted); 22. Habitus in dorsal view (paratype, Shan Lin Xi, Zhushan, Nantou Co., Taiwan); 23. Head in frontal view (holotype)..

(14) 126. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. 24. 25. 26. 27 Figs. 24–27. Camptoptera jthuberi, female: 24. Antenna (holotype); 25. Mesosoma (paratype, Shan Lin Xi, Zhushan, Nantou Co., Taiwan); 26. Propodeum and metasoma (holotype); 27. Fore and hind wings (holotype).. 28. 0.1 mm. 29. 30. Figs. 28–30. Camptoptera jthuberi, male (paratype, Wushe, Nantou Co., Taiwan): 28. Antenna; 29. Habitus in dorsal view (prior to being slide-mounted); 30. Metasoma..

(15) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. on slide, CNC). Nantou Co.: Meifeng, 2,150 m, 19.ii–18.viii.1991, C. K. Starr, C. S. Lin, pan traps (2 females on cards and 1 female on slide, CNC). Wushe, 1,100 m, 27.v.1990, J. M. Heraty, deciduous forest, H074 [collector’s code] (1 male on card, CNC). Zhushan, Shan Lin Xi [as Shan-Lin-Chi], 1,600 m, 16.v.1990, L. LeSage, primary forest, flight intercept trap and pan traps (4 females on cards, 2 females on points, and 1 female on slide, CNC; 1 female on slide, UCRC). Description. Female (holotype). Body (Fig. 21) dark brown (mesosoma slightly lighter than head or metasoma); scape, pedicel and clava light brown, funicle brown except base of F1 light brown; legs mostly light brown except metatibia a little darker (mostly brown). Head (Fig. 23). Face with faint cell-like sculpture, more conspicuous below lower level of eyes and above toruli, vertex with a more reticulate sculpture, and occiput striate. Antenna (Fig. 24) with scape minus short radicle 5.6 times as long as wide; pedicel shorter than F1; funicle 7-segmented (F2 ringlike), F1 shorter than F3 (the longest funicular segment), slightly longer than F4–F6 and longer than F7 (the widest funicular segment), ratios of F3 length to F1 length and F3 length to F4 length 1.4; clava 5.5 times as long as wide, with 4 very long mps, a little longer than combined length of F5–F7. Mesosoma (as in Fig. 25). Mesoscutum reticulate, with notauli short, incomplete (only at its anterior margin); scutellum notably longitudinally striate on the sides and with a faint, inconspicuous cell-like sculpture medially. Propodeum with very strong, wide apart, complete (extending to propodeal anterior margin) submedian ridges and an incomplete lateral carina originating at an angle to each submedian ridge (not extending to propodeal anterior margin), but otherwise mostly hardly sculptured. Fore wing (Fig. 27) 13.9 times as long as wide, curving strongly towards wing’s apex; longest marginal seta 4.4 times maximum wing width; disc with a rather strong brownish tinge. 127. and 1 (in smaller specimens) or 2 (in larger specimens) irregular median rows of setae besides adnotaular rows of setae. Hind wing (Fig. 27) about 29 times as long as wide; disc slightly infumate, with 2 rows of setae besides admarginal rows of setae; longest marginal seta 8.8 times maximum wing width. Gaster (Fig. 26) shorter than mesosoma. Petiole (Fig. 26) 1.1 times wider than long, shorter than metacoxa, strongly ridged and without a lateral lamella. Ovipositor barely exserted beyond apex of gaster, occupying 0.45 of its length, and 0.6 times length of metatibia. Measurements of the holotype (mm). Body (of the dry-mounted, critical point dried specimen prior to slide-mounting) 0.53; head (of the dry-mounted specimen prior to slide-mounting) 0.099; mesosoma 0.303; petiole 0.052; gaster 0.267; ovipositor 0.128. Antenna: scape plus radicle 0.142; pedicel 0.043; F1 0.06; F2 0.003; F3 0.083; F4 0.058; F5 0.055; F6 0.052; F7 0.049; clava 0.183. Fore wing 0.763 : 0.055; longest marginal seta 0.242. Hind wing 0.707 : 0.024; longest marginal seta 0.212. Metatibia: 0.215. Variation (paratypes, as in Fig. 22). Body length of the dry-mounted, critical point dried specimens 0.445–0.595 mm. Antenna with scape minus radicle 5.5–7.1 times as long as wide; ratio of F3 length to F1 length 1.35–1.4; clava 5.0–5.1 times as long as wide. Submedian ridges on propodeum sometimes not extending to propodeal anterior margin (almost reaching it). Fore wing 13.8–16.7 times as long as wide, longest marginal seta 3.9–4.8 times maximum wing width. Hind wing 28–29 times as long as wide, longest marginal seta 7.9–8.1 times maximum wing width. Ovipositor 0.5–0.6 times length of metatibia. Male (paratypes). Body length (of the card-mounted, critical point dried specimens) 0.41–0.53 mm. Similar to female except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna and genitalia. Body (Fig. 29) entirely dark brown, antenna and legs brown. Antenna (Fig. 28) with flagellum 10-segmented (F2 and.

(16) 128. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. F4 ringlike, very short and thus inconspicuous, other flagellomeres much longer than wide and about as long as scape except F1 a little shorter than scape), scape about 5.2 times as long as wide. Mesosoma much longer than metasoma. Fore wing 15.3 times as long as wide. Genitalia (Fig. 30) length 0.07 mm. Diagnosis. C. jthuberi probably does not belong to the informal cardui species group of Camptoptera Foerster, 1856, as defined by Triapitsyn (2014b), even though it somewhat resembles some of its members. It differs from the only described Oriental species from this group, C. kannada Subba Rao, 1989 from India (Triapitsyn 2017b), and also from the western Palaearctic and Nearctic species C. cardui (Foerster, 1856) and the eastern Palaearctic species C. zagvozdka Triapitsyn, 2014 in having very strong, wide apart, complete submedian ridges on the propodeum which are easily visible even on dry-mounted specimens (the propodeum is without any ridges or defined submedian carinae in C. kannada and C. zagvozdka, and with faint, often almost indistinct, wide apart linear submedian carinae slightly narrowing towards the metanotum but not extending to it in C. cardui). The new species also has a strongly ridged petiole, thus being similar to the rather common Oriental and Eastern Palaearctic species C. matcheta Subba Rao, 1989, from which it differs in having a much longer flagellum of the female antenna and a narrower, less setose fore wing (Triapitsyn 2017b). Rather, C. jthuberi is most similar to C. concava Taguchi, 1972, described from Bohol Island, the Philippines (Taguchi 1972). Unfortunately, the single known specimen of the latter species, the holotype female, is lost. Female of C. jthuberi differs from that of C. concava mainly in the proportions of some funicle segments, particularly in having F3 notably longer than F1 (at least 1.35 times) whereas in C. concava F1 is almost the same length as F3 (F3 1.08 times length of F1), as illustrated by Taguchi (1972) and also calculated from the measurements provided in its. original description. Etymology. The species is named after Dr. John T. Huber (CNC) who identified specimens of the type series to genus and kindly let me borrow them. Hosts. Unknown. *Camptoptera matcheta Subba Rao, 1989 Material examined. Taiwan, Nantou Co.: Meifeng, 2,130 m, 10–17.vii.1993, A. Smetana (1 female, CNC). Zhushan, Shan Lin Xi, 1,600 m, 16.v.1990, L. LeSage (1 female, CNC). Camptoptera sakaii Taguchi, 1977 C. sakaii Taguchi, 1977b: 143–144 (Kenting National Park, Pingtung Co.; holotype female lost from EUMJ). Comments. Female of this species was recently redescribed by Rehmat & Anis (2014) based on specimens from India. However, its true identity can only be revealed when a well matching female is collected at or near the type locality and designated as a neotype. Although its original description has good illustrations of the female antenna and mesosoma, unfortunately Taguchi (1977b) did not provide a detailed illustration or description of fore wing disc chaetotaxy, which may be important for recognition of C. sakaii. Camptoptera stoptera Triapitsyn, 2014 C. stoptera Triapitsyn, 2014b: 73 (Nantou Co.). Material examined. Taiwan, Nantou Co., Lienhuatse, 750 m, 20.ii–18.iii.1991, C. K. Starr, C. S. Lin (1 female, CNC). Camptoptera taiwana Taguchi, 1977 C. taiwana Taguchi 1977b: 144–145 (Kenting National Park, Pingtung Co.; holotype female lost from EUMJ). Camptoptera spp. Material examined. Taiwan: Nantou Co.: Lienhuatse, 750 m, 20.ii–18.iii.1991, C. K. Starr, C. S. Lin (1 female, CNC). Meifeng,.

(17) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 16.i–20.ii.1991, C. S. Lin, C. K. Starr (2 females, CNC). Orchid Island (Lan Yü), 200 m, 5–9.vii.1991, C. K. Starr (1 female, CNC). Pingtung Co., Kenting National Park, C. K. Starr, S. M. Wu: 5–8.iv.1991 (5 females, 1 male, CNC); 210–230 m, 5.v.1991 (4 males, CNC); 210 m, 11–17.v.1991 (1 male, CNC). Comments. Five of the six males from the Kenting National Park belong to the group of species which corresponds to the former genus Eomymar Perkins, 1912, in which only F2 is ring-like while F4 is about as long as F3 or F5 (Triapitsyn 2014b), and the five females from there belong to three different, undetermined morphospecies none of which, unfortunately, matches well the original descriptions and illustrations of either C. sakaii or C. taiwana. *Camptopteroides sp(p). (Fig. 31) Material examined. Taiwan: Kaohsiung City, Shanping, 640 m, 1–10.iv.1988, R. L. Davidson, J. E. Rawlins, C. W. Young (1 female, CNC). Nantou Co., Zhushan, Shan Lin Xi, 1600 m, 16.v.1990, L. LeSage (1 female, CNC). Comments. Both females were identified as members of the genus Camptopteroides Viggiani, 1974 by Dr. J. T. Huber. The macropterous specimen from Kaohsiung City is not C. alata Lin, 1999 because it has a banded fore. 31. 129. wing, and that from Nantou Co. is strongly brachypterous (Fig. 31). *Cleruchus spp. Material examined. Taiwan: Nantou Co., Zhushan, Shan Lin Xi, 1,600 m, 16.v.1990, L. LeSage (1 female, CNC). Pingtung Co., Tengchih, Medium Altitude Experimental Station, 23°05.75’N 120°47.37’E, 1,660 m, 4.vi.2008, L. Masner (1 female, CNC). Taichung, Anmashan, 2,230 m, 11–15.v.1992, A. Smetana (1 female, CNC). Comments. These specimens were identified as members of the genus Cleruchus Enock, 1909 by Dr. J. T. Huber. The females from Nantou Co. and Taichung belong to a different species than the female from Pingtung Co. *Cosmocomoidea atra Foerster, 1841 Material examined. Taiwan: Pingtung Co., Kenting National Park, Hengchun, Kueitzuchiao (as “Kuraru, Heng Chung”), 22–29. v.1965, K. S. Lin (8 females, TARI). Taichung, Shengkuang, 1,850 m, 20.ix.1968, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Taipei City: 6–15.xii.1957, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); 13–17.v.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); viii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); 9–25.i.1964, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); 1–19.ii.1964, K. S. Lin (1. 0.5 mm. Fig. 31. Camptopteroides sp., brachypterous female (Shan Lin Xi, Zhushan, Nantou Co., Taiwan): habitus in dorsal view..

(18) 130. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. female, TARI); 11–21.iv.1964, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI).. male, TARI). Wulai (20 km S of Taipei City), 1.vi.1962, W. H. Ting (2 females, TARI).. *Cosmocomoidea kikimora Triapitsyn, 2013 Material examined. Taiwan, Taipei City: Hsintien, 31.iii.1963, K. S. Lin (2 females, TARI); 1–12.vii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); 4–19.xi.1963, K. S. Lin (2 females, TARI); 20–30.xii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TA R I ) ; 9 – 1 8 . i . 1 9 6 4 , K . S . L i n ( 1 f e m a l e , TARI); 1–19.ii.1964, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); vi.1967, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI).. Cosmocomoidea ?latipennis (Girault, 1911) Gonatocerus (Cosmocomoidea) ?latipennis: Triapitsyn 2013b: 150 (Nantou Co.). Material examined. Taiwan, Taipei City, 20–30.xii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI).. *C osmocomoidea kodaiana Mani and Saraswat, 1973 Material examined. Taiwan, Chiayi Co., Alishan, 2,450 m, 16.vi.1965, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Taipei City: Hsintien, 31.iii.1963, K. S. Lin (3 females, TARI); 5–6.iv.1963, K. S. Lin (2 females, TARI); 15–19.iv.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); Hsintien, 6.iv.1964, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); 11–21.iv.1964, K. S. Lin (2 females, TARI). Tsaoshan (20 km N of Taipei City), 14.viii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 fe-. *C osmocomoidea tenuis Xu, Lin and Hu, 2016 (Fig. 32) Material examined. Taiwan: Taichung, Shengkuang, 1,850 m, 20.ix.1968, K. S. Lin (4 females, 1 male, TARI). Taipei City, Hsintien, 31.iii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Description. Male (slide-mounted specimen from Taiwan, Fig. 32). Body length 1.28 mm. Similar to female, as described by Aishan et al. (2016), except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna and genitalia. Antenna with pedicel small, about as long as wide; flagellomeres more or less subequal in length (F1 the shortest and the widest), each with many mps. Fore wing 2.8 times as long as. 32 Fig. 32. Cosmocomoidea tenuis, male (Shengkuang, Taichung, Taiwan): habitus (a slide mount)..

(19) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. wide, longest marginal seta 0.25 times maximum wing width; hind wing about 18 times as long as wide, longest marginal seta 2.3 times maximum wing width. Gaster relatively shorter than in female, shorter than mesosoma. Comments. This species was previously known from the females only, all collected in Fujian, China (Aishan et al. 2016). Cosmocomoidea sp. Gonatocerus (Cosmocomoidea) sp.: Triapitsyn and Shih, 2014: 675–676 (Taichung). Host in Taiwan: Kolla paulula (Walker, 1858) (Cicadellidae) (Triapitsyn & Shih 2014). *E rythmelus (Erythmelus) nuinu Triapitsyn, 2003 Material examined. Taiwan, Nantou Co.,. 33. 34. 131. E of Shankan, 2,000–2,200 m, 28.v.1990, J. M. Heraty (1 female, CNC). *E rythmelus (Parallelaptera) funiculi (Annecke and Doutt, 1961) Material examined. Taiwan, Taichung, Hsuchsan (above Shan Liu), Gieu Hut, 3,200 m, 8–10.v.1991, A. Smetana (1 female, CNC). *E ubroncus scutatus Manickavasagam and Palanivel, 2015 (Figs. 33–43) Material examined. Taiwan: Taichung, Hsinkangshan (above Chengkung), 350 m, 25–28.iv.1995, A. Smetana (1 female, 2 males, CNC). Taipei City: 14–22.xi.1990, C. K. Starr, yellow pan trap (1 female, CNC); City Park, 1–19.xii.1990, J. T. Chao, yellow pan trap (1 female, CNC).. 0.5 mm. 35. Figs. 33–35. Eubroncus scutatus, females (Taipei City, Taiwan): 33. Habitus in lateral view; 34. Head in dorsal view; 35. Mandibles..

(20) 132. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. 36. 37. 38. 39 Figs. 36–39. Eubroncus scutatus, females: 36. Antenna (Taipei City, Taiwan); 37. Fore wing (paratype, Mulakadu, Kallakuruchi Taluk, Tamil Nadu, India; photograph courtesy of S. Manickavasagam); 38. Mesosoma and metasoma (Taipei City, Taiwan); 39. Fore and hind wings (Taipei City, Taiwan).. R e d e s c r i p t i o n ( s p e c i m e n s f ro m Ta i wan). Female. Body length 0.83–0.89 mm (dry-mounted specimens, as in Fig. 33). Dark brown: head, mesosoma laterally, propodeum dorsally, petiole; brown: rest of body, antenna (except radicle); light brown: mandible (Fig. 35), radicle, and legs. Head (Fig. 34) with vertex smooth. Antenna (Fig. 36) with scape minus radicle with reticulate sculpture, 4.2 times as long as wide; funicular segments short and transverse, F1 without mps, F2–F6 each with 2 mps; clava 2.1–2.2 times as long as wide, with. 7 mps, a little longer than combined length of F2–F6. Mesosoma sculptured as in Fig. 38 (midlobe of mesoscutum and propodeum medially with reticulate sculpture). Fore wing (Fig. 39) about 4.0 times as long as wide; disc infuscate throughout, with a row of long setae behind submarginal vein and with characteristic several discolored marginal setae on posterior margin next to a small bare area behind stigmal vein; longest marginal seta 0.34 times maximum width of wing. Hind wing (Fig. 39) 8.4 times as long as wide; disc infuscate and.

(21) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 133. 40. 41. 42. 43 Figs. 40–43. Eubroncus scutatus, male [Hsinkangshan (above Chengkung), Taichung, Taiwan]: 40. Antenna; 41. Mesosoma; 42. Metasoma; 43. Fore and hind wings.. with a few somewhat longer setae behind and just beyond apex of venation; longest marginal seta 1.2 times maximum width of wing. Coxae with reticulate sculpture. Petiole about as long as wide, strongly reticulate. Gaster (Fig. 38) shorter than mesosoma; first gastral tergum and first gastral sternum with numerous sclerotized ridges; ovipositor about as long as mesotibia, exserted slightly beyond gastral apex. Male. Body length (dry-mounted specimens) 0.825–0.925 mm. Similar to female except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna and genitalia, and the following. Body mostly dark brown except pronotum and most of gaster brown; scape. and pedicel brown, flagellum dark brown; legs light brown. Antenna (Fig. 40) with scape minus radicle reticulate, 5.0 times as long as wide; flagellomeres more or less subequal in length (the apical ones slightly longer), longer than wide, each with several mps. Mesosoma sculptured as in Fig. 41. Fore wing (Fig. 43) 3.5 times as long as wide and its disc without a well-defined small bare area behind stigmal vein next to several discolored marginal setae on posterior margin; longest marginal seta 0.36 times maximum wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 43) 8.7 times as long as wide and its disc without a few somewhat longer setae behind and just beyond apex of venation; longest marginal.

(22) 134. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. seta about as long as maximum width of wing. Genitalia (Fig. 42) length 0.14 mm. Diagnosis. I assign these interesting specimens to E. scutatus Manickavasagam and Palanivel, 2015, previously known only from India (Anwar et al. 2015; Palanivel & Manickavasagam 2015). In the female specimens from Taiwan, the discal setae along the posterior margin of the fore wing extend to before the level of the middle of the marginal vein (Fig. 39) whereas those appear to extend only past the level of the middle of the marginal vein in the fore wing illustrated by Palanivel & Manickavasagam (2015, p. 7154, Fig. 7). That, however, was due to some of the discal setae being rubbed off as these are present in the paratype female of E. scutatus (Fig. 37) and also in other conspecific specimens from India (S. Manickavasagam, personal communication). It differs from E. prodigiosus (Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972) in having a longer scape (minus radicle) of the female antenna, which is 4.2 times as long as wide (about 3.0 times as long as wide in E. prodigiosus, Fig. 68), and also in having the midlobe of the mesoscutum with a reticulate sculpture (almost entirely smooth in E. prodigiosus, Fig. 69) and the pronotum faintly divided mediolongitudinally (entire in E. prodigiosus). The feature of pronotum being or being not divided mediolongitudinally, however, may not be the best practical character for separation of the species of Eubroncus Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972 because it is often difficult to figure out correctly. For instance, it is used in the keys by Jin & Li (2014) and Palanivel & Manickavasagam (2015) to separate E. indicus Hayat and Khan, 2009 from West Bengal, India, which has been known from the single holotype whose body is dry-mounted on a card and described without providing the important diagnostic details of sculpture, particularly on vertex and mesosoma (Hayat & Khan 2009). Recently, the diagnosis of E. indicus was updated by Anwar et al. (2015) based on the holotype female. I have examined the follow-. ing specimens of E. indicus: Nepal, Dhawalagiri (Dhaulagiri) Zone, Goropani Pass, East ridge (also spelled as Ghoropani, Gorepani, or Ghorepani), ca. 3,000 m, 7.x.1983, A. Smetana, mountain meadow, screen sweeping (2 females, 2 males, CNC). It is a new record for the country. In the females, whose body length is about 1.05 mm, the vertex is almost smooth (with a faint, inconspicuous, cell-like sculpture better seen in slide-mounted specimens), the pronotum is with a trace of an inconspicuous, short median carina at the anterior margin only which possibly could be interpreted, in slide-mounted specimens, as a “faint longitudinal carina medially” in Jin & Li’s (2014) key, the mesoscutum, scutellum and propodeum medially are mostly almost smooth and with 8 large foveae at the frenal line medially (Fig. 44), the fore wing (Fig. 46) is 3.75 times as long as wide and its disc has a row of long setae behind submarginal vein, and the hind wing (Fig. 46) is very wide (7.5 times as long as wide) and its disc with a group of very long setae behind and just beyond the apex of venation. Thus, these specimens also fit very well the description and illustrations of E. hani Jin and Li, 2014 from the similar altitude in Yunnan, China (Jin & Li 2014); therefore, E. hani syn. nov. is hereby synonymized under E. indicus. Eubroncus scutatus differs from E. tibetanus Jin and Li, 2014 from Tibet, China, to which it keys in Jin & Li (2014), and also from E. vertexus Jin and Li, 2014 from Yunnan in having an entirely smooth vertex, from Eubroncus orientalis Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972 (to which it is very similar and quite likely conspecific) only in having a relatively longer ovipositor (about 1.0 times length of mesotibia versus about 0.7 times in E. orientalis, but we do not know the range of variation of this character in both nominal taxa), and from E. indicus in having a reticulate propodeum medially and presence of strong ridges on the first gastral tergum [these are absent in the latter species according to.

(23) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. Hayat & Khan (2009) and Anwar et al. (2015)], so its first gastral tergum is nearly smooth. The males of E. scutatus and E. orientalis are practically indistinguishable; the latter species probably has a wide distribution range in the Oriental region. Hosts. Unknown. Comments. I have examined the following extralimital specimen of E. prodigiosus: Russia, Primorskiy kray, Ussuriyskiy rayon, Gornotayozhnoye, 12.vii.2000, M. V. Michailovskaya (1 male, UCRC). The previously unknown male of E. indicus is described, as follows (specimens from Nepal). Length of head (only one specimen. 44. 135. measured) 0.267 mm, length of mesosoma plus metasoma 0.916–0.972 mm (slide-mounted specimens). Similar to female, as described by Hayat & Khan (2009) and re-diagnosed and illustrated by Anwar et al. (2015), except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna and genitalia, and the following. Body dark brown to black; scape and pedicel brown, flagellum dark brown; legs brown except metacoxa light brown. Vertex (Fig. 45) almost smooth (with a very faint, inconspicuous celllike sculpture better visible under high magnification in slide-mounted specimens); mandibles as in Fig. 47. Antenna (Fig. 49) with scape reticulate, 5.2–6.0 times as long as wide;. 45. 46. 47. 48. Figs. 44–48. Eubroncus indicus (Goropani Pass, Dhawalagiri Zone, Nepal): 44. Female mesosoma; 45. Male head and scape; 46. Female fore and hind wings; 47. Male mandibles; 48. Male genitalia..

(24) 136. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. flagellomeres more or less subequal in length (the apical ones slightly longer), longer than wide, each with several mps. Mesosoma sculptured as in Fig. 50. Fore wing (Fig. 51) 3.5–3.6 times as long as wide and its disc with a row of long setae behind submarginal vein; longest marginal seta about 0.34 times maximum wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 51) 8.0–8.1 times as long as wide; longest marginal seta about as long as maximum width of wing; disc with much shorter setae behind and just beyond the apex of venation than in female (Fig. 46). First gastral sternum with prominent ridges; genitalia (Fig. 48) length 0.149–0.157 mm. Using this opportunity, the male of E. orientalis is redescribed and illustrated in detail. to complement the original description, and its previously unknown female is described. This is necessary to include the type species of the genus in the key below; it was omitted from the world keys to females of Eubroncus of Jin & Li (2014) and Palanivel & Manickavasagam (2015). I have examined its holotype male (on point) and a male paratype (dissected on a slide, Figs. 52–58), both in CNC, the holotype labeled: 1. “Grombak Field Stn. Selangor MALAYA 3-19.VII.1970 Chua Tock Hing”; 2. “Malaise trap Mounted from alcohol”; 3. “HOLOTYPE Eubroncus orientalis Yshm et al.”; 4. “HOLOTYPE CNC No. 19026.” The paratype has the same data (Fig. 52). The correct type locality of E. orientalis is University. 49. 50. 51 Figs. 49–51. Eubroncus indicus, male (Goropani Pass, Dhawalagiri Zone, Nepal): 49. Antenna; 50. Mesosoma and metasoma; 51. Fore and hind wings..

(25) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 137. 52. 53. 0.1 mm. 54. 0.1 mm. 0.1 mm. 55. 57. 0.1 mm. 0.1 mm. 56. 58. 0.1 mm. Figs. 52–58. Eubroncus orientalis, male (paratype, University of Malaya Field Station, 16 km E of Gombak, 03°19’30’’N, 101°45’12’’E, Selangor, Malaysia; photographs courtesy of S. van Noort): 52. Slide; 53. Head and antennae; 54. Fore leg; 55. Mesosoma minus propodeum; 56. Propodeum and metasoma; 57. Fore wing; 58. Hind wing.. of Malaya Field Station, 16 km E of Gombak, 03°19’30’’N, 101°45’12’’E, 262 m, Selangor, Malaysia (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2002), who also provided brief descriptive notes on its type specimens and a key to the males of the two species of Eubroncus known then. Contrary to the original description of Yoshimoto et al. (1972), it has the fore wing normal for the genus (better seen in the dry-mounted holotype), with a group of 3 or 4 setae at apex. of venation separating a small bare area just beyond venation at apex of the stigmal vein. The fore wing of the paratype male (Fig. 57), which was also illustrated, as a drawing, by Yoshimoto et al. (1972), is just poorly mounted on the slide. The holotype and paratypes of E. orientalis had been compared with the following dry-mounted male in CNC which was then slide-mounted: Indonesia, Sulawesi Island, North Sulawesi, Bogani Nani Wartabone.

(26) 138. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. National Park (as “Dumoga-Bone Nat. Park”), Toraut, v.1985, J. S. Noyes. A matching female on a slide in CNC (Indonesia, Sulawesi Island, North Sulawesi, Kotamobagu, Gunung Muajat, 1,760 m, v.1985, J. S. Noyes), also from North Sulawesi, is used to describe the previously unknown female sex of this species below. Of course, it would be preferable to have a matching female from or near the type locality of E. orientalis in Malaysia, but unfortunately no such specimen is currently available besides that from Thailand, Phetchaburi, Kaeng Krachan National Park, 12°47’53’’N 99°27’11’’E, 290 m, 24–26.vi.2008, B. V. Brown (1 female, UCRC), which comes from the same Malay Peninsula (and what it is also important from about the same altitude) as the holotype of this species, and is undoubtedly conspecific with the female from Sulawesi Island. Its ovipositor is 0.7 times as long as mesotibia. Very similar, if not conspecific, specimens are also known to me: Papua New Guinea, Morobe Province, Tekadu: xi.1999–iv.2000, “binatung brigade” (1 male, UCDC); 7°38’S 146°34’E, i.2000, T. S. Sears and “binatung brigade” (1 male, UCRC). Description (female of E. orientalis from Sulawesi Island). Body and antenna (except radicle) brown; mandible, radicle and legs pale light brown. Vertex (Fig. 59) almost smooth (with a very faint, inconspicuous cell-like sculpture visible only under high magnification in slide-mounted specimen). Antenna (Fig. 61) with scape minus radicle with reticulate sculpture, 4.75 times as long as wide; funicular segments short and transverse, F1 the shortest and the narrowest funicular segment and without mps, F2–F6 subequal in length (F6 the widest funicular segment) and each with 2 mps; clava 2.4 times as long as wide, with 7 mps, a little longer than combined length of F2–F6. Mesosoma sculptured as in Fig. 63 (midlobe of mesoscutum and propodeum medially with reticulate sculpture); frenal line on scutellum with a complete row of foveae. Fore wing (Fig. 62) 3.8 times as long as wide; disc strongly infuscate throughout, with a row of long setae. behind submarginal vein and with characteristic several discolored marginal setae on posterior margin next to a small bare area behind stigmal vein; longest marginal seta about 0.28 times maximum width of wing. Hind wing (Fig. 62) 7.7 times as long as wide; disc strongly infuscate and with a few somewhat longer setae behind and just beyond apex of venation; longest marginal seta almost equal to maximum width of wing. Coxae with reticulate sculpture. Petiole (Fig. 63) almost as wide as long, reticulate. Gaster (Fig. 63) shorter than mesosoma; first gastral tergum with a few and first gastral sternum with numerous sclerotized ridges; ovipositor 0.74 times as long as mesotibia, exserted slightly beyond gastral apex. Measurements (mm). Body (of the dry-mounted specimen prior to slide-mounting) 1.025; head: 0.283; mesosoma 0.449; mesoscutum: 0.112; scutellum: 0.121; petiole 0.057; gaster 0.35; ovipositor 0.141. Antenna: scape (excluding radicle) 0.173; pedicel 0.058; F1 0.021; F2 0.027; F3 0.026; F4 0.027; F5 0.026; F6 0.07; clava 0.27. Fore wing 0.904 : 0.24; longest marginal seta 0.067. Hind wing 0.861 : 0.112; longest marginal seta 0.109. Mesotibia: 0.19. Redescription (male of E. orientalis from Sulawesi Island). Body length (of the dry-mounted specimen prior to slide-mounting) 0.76 mm; head length 0.215 mm; length of mesosoma plus metasoma 0.69 mm. Similar to female except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna and genitalia, and the following. Scape and pedicel pale light brown. Head as in Fig. 60. Antenna (Fig. 64) with scape minus radicle reticulate; flagellomeres subequal in length (apical ones slightly longer), longer than wide, each with several mps. Mesosoma sculptured as in Fig. 65. Fore wing (Fig. 67) 3.3 times as long as wide, without a well-defined small bare area behind stigmal vein next to several discolored marginal setae on posterior margin; longest marginal seta 0.32 times maximum wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 67) 8.4 times as long as wide; disc infuscate.

(27) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 59. 139. 60. 61. 62 Figs. 59–62. Eubroncus orientalis (female—Gunung Muajat, Kotamobagu, North Sulawesi, Sulawesi Island, Indonesia; male—Toraut, Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, North Sulawesi, Sulawesi Island, Indonesia): 59. Female head in dorsal view; 60. Male head in dorsal view; 61. Female antenna; 62. Female fore and hind wings.. and without a few somewhat longer setae behind and just beyond apex of venation; longest marginal seta 0.9 times maximum width of wing. Genitalia (Fig. 66) length 0.142 mm. Key to the described species of Eubroncus in the world, both sexes 1 Female: flagellum clavate, consisting of 6-segmented funicle and an entire clava (as in Figs. 36, 61, 68) ....................... 2 – Male: flagellum filiform, 11-segmented (as in Figs. 40, 49, 53, 64, 75) ............ 7 2(1) Vertex at least partially with strong reticulate (scale-like) sculpture ............. 3 – Vertex smooth or at most with faint,. inconspicuous cell-like sculpture better visible under high magnification in slide-mounted specimens .................... 4 3(2). –. Vertex entirely with strong reticulate (scale-like) sculpture; hind wing disc without a group of long setae behind and just beyond apex of venation .......... ................. E. vertexus Jin and Li, 2014 Vertex only partially with strong reticulate (scale-like) sculpture (more or less smooth around ocelli); hind wing disc with a group of long setae behind and just beyond apex of venation ................. ................. E. tibetanus Jin and Li, 2014.

(28) 140. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67 Figs. 63–67. Eubroncus orientalis (female—Gunung Muajat, Kotamobagu, North Sulawesi, Sulawesi Island, Indonesia; male—Toraut, Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, North Sulawesi, Sulawesi Island, Indonesia): 63. Female mesosoma and metasoma; 64. Male antenna; 65. Male mesosoma and petiole; 66. Male metasoma; 67. Male fore and hind wings.. 4(2). –. 5(4). Clava distinctly longer than funicle; midlobe of mesoscutum almost smooth, at most with a faint, inconspicuous celllike sculpture ..................................... 5 Clava at least a little shorter than funicle; midlobe of mesoscutum with a distinct reticulate sculpture ..................... 6 Fore wing with a row of long setae behind submarginal vein (Fig. 46); hind wing disc with a group of very long setae behind and just beyond apex of venation (Fig. 46) ................................. –. 6(4). ........... E. indicus Hayat and Khan, 2009 Fore wing without a row of long setae behind submarginal vein (as in Fig. 70); hind wing disc without a group of long setae behind and just beyond apex of venation ............................................... ...... E. prodigiosus (Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972) Ovipositor about 0.7 times as long as mesotibia ............................................. ...... E. orientalis Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972.

(29) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. –. 7(1) –. 8(7). –. 9(7). –. Ovipositor about as long as mesotibia .... ...... E. scutatus Manickavasagam and Palanivel, 2015 Vertex at least partially with strong reticulate (scale-like) sculpture ............. 8 Vertex smooth or at most with faint, inconspicuous cell-like sculpture better visible under high magnification in slide-mounted specimens .................... 9 Vertex entirely with strong reticulate (scale-like) sculpture .................. E. vertexus Jin and Li, 2014 Vertex only partially with strong reticulate (scale-like) sculpture (more or less smooth around ocelli) (Fig. 73) ............. ................. E. tibetanus Jin and Li, 2014 Midlobe of mesoscutum almost smooth, at most with a faint, inconspicuous celllike sculpture ................................... 10 Midlobe of mesoscutum with a distinct reticulate sculpture (Figs. 41 and 65) .... ..... E. orientalis Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972 and E. scuta-. 68. 141. tus Manickavasagam and Palanivel, 2015 10(9) P r o p o d e u m m o s t l y s m o o t h m e d i a l l y (Fig. 50); fore wing with a row of long setae behind submarginal vein (Fig. 51) ........... E. indicus Hayat and Khan, 2009 – Propodeum reticulate medially (Fig. 69); fore wing without a row of long setae behind submarginal vein (Fig. 70) .... ...... E. prodigiosus (Yoshimoto, Kozlov and Trjapitzin, 1972). *E u b r o n c u s ? t i b e t a n u s J i n a n d L i , 2 0 1 4 (Figs. 71–76) Material examined. Taiwan, Taichung, Hsinkangshan (above Chengkung), 350 m, 25–28.iv.1995, A. Smetana (1 male, CNC). Extralimital material examined. Japan: Honshu Island: Gifu Prefecture, 8 km SE of Osaka, 750 m, 1.viii.1980, A. and Z. Smetana (2 males, CNC). Ibaraki Prefecture, Tsukuba, Matsushiro, 26.vi–4.vii.1989, M. J. Sharkey (2 females, 1 male, CNC). Kyushu Island: Fu-. 69. 70 Figs. 68–70. Eubroncus prodigiosus (Gornotayozhnoye, Ussuriyskiy rayon, Primorskiy kray, Russia): 68. Female antenna; 69. Male mesosoma and petiole; 70. Male fore and hind wings..

(30) 142. 台灣農業研究第 67 卷第 2 期. 71. 72. 73 Figs. 71–73. Eubroncus tibetanus, male (Mt. Tachibana, Fukuoka Prefecture, Kyushu Island, Japan): 71. Mandibles; 72. Genitalia; 73. Body.. kuoka Prefecture: Mt. Hiko: 4–11.viii.1989, M. J. Sharkey, K. Takeno (1 male, CNC); 11–18. viii.1989, K. Takeno, M. J. Sharkey (1 female, 1 male, CNC). Mt. Tachibana: 6–12.v.1979, K. Yamagishi (5 females, 1 male, CNC); 13–19. v.1979, K. Yamagishi (1 male, CNC); 10–16. v i . 1 9 7 9 , K . Ya m a g i s h i ( 1 f e m a l e , 1 m a l e , CNC); 7–13.vii.1979, K. Yamagishi (1 female, CNC); 15–21.vii.1979, K. Yamagishi (1 female, CNC); 12.viii.1980, C. M. Yoshimoto (4 females, 4 males, CNC). Miyazaki Prefecture, Aya, Teruha Bridge, 32°01’N 131°11’E, 200 m, 20–22.ix.1996, L. Masner (1 female, CNC). Thailand, Chiang Mai, Doi Inthanon National Park, near park headquarters, 18.54°N 98.52°E, 1,300 m, 30.vi.2006, Y. Areeluck (1 male, UCRC). Two females from Mt. Tachibana, Japan were misidentified by C. M. Yoshimoto as E. prodigiosus. These are new country records of E. tibetanus; also a very similar, but probably an undescribed species of Eubroncus is known to me from the mountains of Luzon Island, the Phillipines [3 females in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, USA (CAS)].. Comments. A brief description of the previously unknown male of E. tibetanus is as follows (specimens from Japan). Body length 0.76–1.15 mm (dry-mounted specimens). Similar to female, as described by Jin & Li (2014), except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna and genitalia, and the following. Body dark brown; scape and pedicel brown, flagellum dark brown; mandible and legs light brown to brown except metacoxa dark brown. Vertex (Fig. 73) mostly reticulate except almost smooth around ocelli; mandibles as in Fig. 71. Antenna (Fig. 75) with scape reticulate, 3.7 times as long as wide; flagellomeres more or less subequal in length (the apical ones slightly longer), longer than wide, each with several mps. Mesosoma sculptured as in Fig. 73. Fore wing (Fig. 76) 3.2 times as long as wide and its disc with a row of long setae behind submarginal vein; longest marginal seta about 0.33 times maximum wing width. Hind wing (Fig. 76) 7.6 times as long as wide; longest marginal seta about 0.8 times maximum width of wing; disc with much shorter setae behind and just beyond the apex of ve-.

(31) Annotated Checklist of Taiwanese Mymaridae. 143. 74 75. 76 Figs. 74–76. Eubroncus tibetanus (Mt. Tachibana, Fukuoka Prefecture, Kyushu Island, Japan): 74. Female fore and hind wings; 75. Male antenna; 76. Male fore and hind wings.. nation than in female (Fig. 74). Genitalia (Fig. 72) length 0.136 mm. *Eubroncus sp. Material examined. Taiwan, New Taipei City, Wulai District, Fushan, 400–600 m, 28.xi.1997, B. J. Sinclair (1 male, CNC). Comments. This interesting card-mounted specimen seems to represent an undescribed species as it has a unique combination of a strongly reticulate vertex and the propodeum being mostly smooth medially. *Gonatocerus aegyptiacus Soyka, 1950. Material examined. Taiwan: Chiayi Co., Chiayi, 18.vi.1972, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI). Pingtung Co., Pingtung, 13.iv.1976, C. C. Wu, from eggs of Nephotettix sp. on rice (5 females, 1 male, TARI). Taipei City: viii.1963, K. S. Lin (1 female, TARI); 4.xi.1974, K. S. Lin (5 females, TARI). Host in Taiwan. Nephotettix sp. (Cicadellidae). Extralimital material examined. Japan, Honshu Island, Shimane Prefecture, “Yatsuka-gun, Shimane-cho,” 16.ix.1985, K. Miura, from eggs of N. cincticeps in rice field (4 females, 1 male, CNC)..