home species list Chelonus lugubris
Chelonus lugubris
authorWesmael, 1835
synonyms
body
shape1 1/2 li. (3.4 mm) [W]. 3.8mm [P1]. 3mm [Te1][S1]. 3.8mm [T14].
colorA very dark black, quite dull, and rough [W].
head
shapeHead in dorsal view somewhat less transverse, 1.79 times as broad as long, temple slightly bulging (Fig. 75, 34) [P1][P3]. The head is slightly dilated behind the eyes, with swollen temples. Temples as long as transverse eye diameter, head 1.8 times as long as wide. OOL almost twice OOL, distance between anterior and posterior ocelli equal to ocelli diameter. Face width 1.8 times its height. The malar height is equal to the basal width of the mandible [T14].
sculptureOnly the clypeus is finely punctated [W]. The head is irregularly rugose [T14].
colorPalpi brownish [P1][P3].
antenna
shape ♀16 segments, beyond half subdilated [Th].[female unknown: P1]
shape ♂A little shorter than the body, uniformly setaceous, with 24 segments [W]. Antennae almost as long as body, 24-segmented; length of 3rd segment 3 times its width [T14].
colorThe antennae are black [W].
mesosoma
shapeThe propodeum with two strong teeth [W]. Mesosoma length 1.65 times its height. Propodeum with a pair of lateral tubercles [T14]
sculptureMesosoma rugose. Scutellum weakly punctate, shining. Propodeum coarsely rugose [Te1]. The mesonotum is irregularly rugose [T14]. The metasoma is gently longitudinally rugose [T14].
color
legs
shapeThe legs are thin [W]. Hind femur 3.5 times as long as wide. Hind tibia and tarsi of equal length [T14].
sculpture
colorLegs yellow [P1]. The coxae and trochanters are black; femora and tibiae are yellow, the middle of mid tibiae and base and apex of hind tibiae are black. Tarsi are black [W]. Legs are mostly brownish yellow. Coxae and hind femora entirely dark-colored [T14].
wings
shapePterostigma clearly three times as long as wide, radial cell short, along metacarp one-third shorter than length of pterostigma (Fig. 79). Pterostigma issuing radial vein distally from its middle, 3-SR only a bit shorter than r, SR1 arched, 1-R1 one-fourth shorter than pterostigma (Fig. 79) [P1]. Pterostigma 3 times as long as wide, 1-R1 one-third shorter than pterostigma (Fig. 37) [P3]. The radial vein extends from the middle of the pterostigma;3-SR is slightly shorter than r. R1 is slightly shorter than pterostigma [T14].
colorThe wings are completely dark, with veins and stigma black [W]. Smoky wings, pterostigma black [Te1].
metasoma
shapeCarapace apically less incurved, i.e. ventral cavity of carapace only somewhat shorter than carapace itself (Fig. 82 i ). Posteriorly evenly broadening carapace [P1]. Metasoma widened towards posterior third, twice as long as wide [T14].
sculptureThe rugosity of the metasoma is very distinct at the base and quite regularly longitudinal [W]. Metasoma at base with sharp longitudinal rugae [Te1]
color
♀ ovipositorFemale unknown [P1].
♂ apertureApical foramen of male carapace three times as wide as high (Fig. 83, 35) [P1][P3]. At the end of the metasoma a large transversal fissure [W]; The aperture is elongated-oval, noticeably wider than half the width of the metasoma; the width is 3 times its height [T14].
other info
distributionBE, DFE, FR, GB, NL, PL, SE [FE].
remarksThe female of M. lugubris is unknown. The taxonomic position of this species will unambiguously be cleared up only when the female is discovered. On the basis of our present knowledge among the European Microchelonus species known by their females there is not a single species with similar features displayed by the male M. lugubris, consequently, we can not suppose a conspecificity with any Microchelonus species known either by the female or male only. Of course, there is a possibility that the female of M. lugubris is transitional to the genus Chelonus by its antenna with more than 16 antennomeres. If so, M. lugubris increases the number of the transitional forms between the genera Chelonus and Microchelonus (further details see in the introductory chapter of Microchelonus).
2. Though the male of M. lugubris was described more than one-and-a-half centuries ago we know this species on the basis of its male holotype only. It seems a very rare species which is very difficult to recognize considering its description given by WESMAEL [P1].
hosts