Bruesopria Wing, 1951

Chemyreva, Vasilisa G., Yoon, Seonwoo & Ku, Deok-Seo, 2025, Revision of the genus Lepidopria Kieffer (Hymenoptera, Diapriidae, Diapriinae) of the world fauna, Journal of Hymenoptera Research 98, pp. 1107-1126 : 1107-1126

Genus Bruesopria Wing, 1951

Note.

A detailed diagnosis of this genus has been given by Masner and García (2002). Therefore, here we give only a short comparative diagnosis of this genus, emphasizing the diagnostic differences between it and the genus Lepidopria .

Comparative diagnosis.

Female antenna 11–12 - merous [only 12 - merous in Lepidopria ], with abrupt 3 - merous clava [nonabrupt or 4 - merous clava in Lepidopria ]; posterior margin of propodeum with deep semicircular excavation, median carina of propodeum rudimentary, posterolateral corner of propodeum angular and strongly projecting [same in Lepidopria to with median carina, without excavation of posterior margin and without posterolateral projection]; petiole strongly modified, remarkably higher than long in lateral view, with finger-like projection produced dorsally above anterior margin of T 2 (Fig. 1 C, D ) [same in Lepidopria (Fig. 9 E ) to as long as high in lateral view and not produce dorsally above T 2 (Fig. 2 C, D )]; base of S 2 bare, smooth, flat: not convex medially and not grooved laterally, with deep semicircular excavation of anterior margin (Fig. 1 A ) [densely setose, with lateral grooves and convex medially, excavation of anterior margin not deep in Lepidopria (Fig. 1 B )].

Remarks.

This genus comprises only two described species from the New World ( Wing 1951; Johnson 1992). Masner and García (2002) reported an undescribed species associated with Solenopsis sp. in Arizona. An undetermined species of Bruesopria (possibly B. aberrans ) was found by Dr Alexander L. Wild in a colony of Solenopsis molesta (Say, 1836) at Konza Prairie in Kansas, USA (see Fig. 1 E, F ). The biodiversity and morphological variability of the three closely related genera – Lepidopria , Bruesopria , and Solenopsia Wasmann, 1899 – have not yet been sufficiently studied and future discoveries may necessitate the synonymisation of these genera ( Masner and García 2002). However, the diagnostic differences between Lepidopria and Bruesopria , as described above, are presently clear enough to maintain these taxa as valid. Furthermore, these genera have different distributions: all Lepidopria species are found in the Palaearctic region, whereas all Bruesopria species are found in the Nearctic region.

Figures

Figure 1. Bruesopria americana (A), Lepidopria masneri (B), B. aberrans, comb. nov., female, slide of holotype (C, D) and Bruesopria sp. (E, F): A, B metasoma, ventral view C base of metasoma D habitus, dorsolateral view E, F female of Bruesopria sp. in the colony of thief ant Solenopsis molesta (Say), image Alex Wild, used by permission.

Figure 2. Lepidopria bicarinata sp. nov., female. A habitus, lateral view B head, mesosoma and base of metasoma, dorsal view C metasoma, lateral view D head and mesosoma, lateral view E face F antenna, lateral view. Scale bars: 0.5 mm (A); 0.3 mm (B – E).

Figure 9. Lepidopria pedestris, male. A face and base of antennae B head, mesosoma and base of metasoma, dorsal view C habitus, dorsal view D flagellum, dorsal view E petiole, lateral view. Scale bars: 0.5 mm (C); 0.3 mm (A, B, D).