ADDITIONS TO THE REVISION OF THE GENUS HEMISTEPHANUS ENDERLEIN ( HYMENOPTERA : STEPHANIDAE ) , WITH INCLUSION OF FOUR TAXA AND DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES

Four additional species are included in the genus Hemistephanus: H. villosus (Kieffer) comb. n. and H. colombiensis (Ceballos) comb. n., transferred from Megischus and redescribed, and H. costaricensis sp. n. and H. stenogulatus sp. n., described as new; H. artiosulcatus Aguiar is proposed as a junior synonym of H. villosus Kieffer. The males of H. arctatus, H. colombiensis, H. submaculatus, and H. villosus are described for the first time. Much new or additional morphometric data is incorporated and discussed for these species and for H. carinatus, H. erugatus, H. erythrocephalus, H. limpidipennis, H. orfilanus, H. ruficeps, and H. velutinus. New geographical records are presented for all mentioned species and for H. cylindricus. Errata for publications on Stephanidae are presented. Misidentified males published as H. macrurus by Brullé are assigned to Megischus furcatus. A revised and updated key to species, and an updated summary of morphometric information for all Hemistephanus species, are presented. Photographic illustrations are provided for all new or transferred taxa, and to H. carinatus, H. collarifer, H. ruficeps, and H. submaculatus.

Of the examined specimens, 15 belong to well known species, and were not evaluated for morphometric purposes; all of the remaining 83 specimens (64 females and 19 males) were measured, the results combined to the data provided in Aguiar (1998), and the final result organized here for the first time in tabular form (Tables 1-4).All new taxa and information were incorporated in a revised key to species.
The methodology is generally the same described in Aguiar (2001).Label data from the specimens was incorporated in a world Stephanidae database, available via Internet (Aguiar and Musetti, 2002).Updated distribution maps using all available data can be assessed in the corresponding webpage (http://iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/projects/stephanids).
For morphological terminology and abbreviations see Aguiar (2001).Sculpturing terminology follows Eady (1968).Conventions and explanations for the abbreviations used here for morphometric ratios are described in Aguiar (2001), except for the following, not used in the mentioned work: Abd = maximum petiole length + post-abdomen length (Ptl + Gsl); Ac = length of vein 1A of front wing; aOv = length of dark apex of ovipositor valves; Cc = internal length of cell 2Cu, from apex of 1cu-a to apex of 2Cua; fb = length of white subapical band of ovipositor valves.The use of fluorescent illumination is highly recommended for all observations.
In the key, the characters appear in descending order of taxonomic weight.Thus, in each couplet, a given character must be considered of greater taxonomic weight than those subsequent to it.Values between square brackets are expanded limits within which there is no overlap with known limits of closely related species.
Two corrections must be considered in Aguiar (1998): first, its figure 26 illustrates ratio fl3/fl2, and not fl2/fl1; second, the abbreviation T3/T4, as used in the mentioned work, is imprecise, and the respective ratio must be interpreted as T3l/T4w, that is, length of T3 (2 nd gastral) over width of T4 (3 rd gastral).

MORPHOLOGY AND TAXONOMY
The proposed new synonym, and the four taxa here incorporated to Hemistephanus, change the known number of species for this genus from 21 to 24.New descriptive and biometric data are presented and discussed below.
Description -Male.Very similar to the female, including occipital carina latero-ventrally with same characteristic emargination.Most significant differences are hind tibia posteriorly normal; head, front and mid legs light brown to light orange; vein 2-1A on front wing entirely lacking.Abdomen lost.
Thorax -The characteristic granular texture of interfoveolar and post-foveolar areas is illustrated in Fig. 40.
Biometry -Updated values for females are illustrated in Figs.1-18 (sp. 10) and listed in Tables 1-2; values for males in Figs.19-28 (sp. 10) and Tables 3-4.The revised morphometric limits for females show that the ratio Ov/Ptl, used in the key to species in Aguiar (1998), has values which completely overlap those of H. erythrocephalus, to which it is more similar.However, the ratios Pnl/cw, also used in the key, and T4l/T3l, not previously available to H. erythrocephalus, are now confirmed to be of great help in isolating these two species (females).
The holotype could not be examined by Aguiar (1998), but was studied for the present work.It is a typical Hemistephanus, and belongs to a distinct species from those discussed by that author.The following redescription and comments place the species in context.
Redescription -Female.Head (Fig. 29).Vertex anteriorly and coronal area finely granular in between rugosities, remaining of head polished smooth in between rugosities.Frons transversely striate, centrally more irregular and with some ramifications, laterally highly regular and parallel, latero-dorsally changing to oblique.Hind tubercles cariniform, almost meeting mesally, but not contiguous.Vertex with scarce, short and delicate hairs, sometimes glabrous; 2-3 interocellar carinae, the first wide and blade-shaped, the two remaining as a rugosity, centrally irregular; somewhat irregular-rugose in a small area just behind last interocellar carina, then with rugosities organized in a clearly concentric pattern, with 5-9 complete or incomplete loops.Post vertex simple, convex; finely but conspicuously transverse-rugose to occipital carina, except polished smooth postero-laterally, at limit between temple and gena.Gena polished smooth, with scarce punctures; not prominent.Occipital carina dorsally marginate, becoming progressively wider until clearly projected laterally (as in fig.113 in Aguiar, 1998), then width decreasing toward apex of carina, which disappears distinctly before reaching hypostomal carina; seen from behind, with distinct curvature at the latero-ventral angle, the sides somewhat convergent ventrally.Postgenal bridge wide in all its extension, finely alutaceous, sinking progressively towards foramen magnum; postgenal line distinct.
Thorax -Pronotum (Figs.30-33): Apical carina not differentiated (anterior margin of pronotum is sharp) or narrow, slightly wider laterally; weakly but uniformly emarginate; without apparent microsculpturing.Colo flat, wide, with 4 pairs of distinct carinae, the first usually complete, the remaining incomplete (all 4 incomplete in the holotype), the third long and converging to inside pronotal fold.Pronotal fold deep, but with visible end (bottom).Preannular seen dorsally triangular, conspicuously prominent; densely and finely transverse-rugose.Preannular ruga moderately to strongly developed, but blending with overall pronotal sculpturing.Semiannular strongly striate-rugose along dorsal and dorso-lateral margin (as in fig.16 of Harris, 1979, but densely as in fig.6 of same author), with several intermixed punctuations; this pattern chang-ing to striate-alutaceous in all the remaining area.Femoral impression distinct, posteriorly narrow, anteriorly wide, reaching anterior margin of preannular area, its surface polished smooth; ventral area posteriorly with longitudinal rugulosities, which continue anteriorly intermixed with microimbricate or microreticulatealutaceous, also 2-3 carinae behind margin of pronotal fold, which are weaker than carinae on colo.Prosternum on basal 0.7 convex, changing to nearly flat near apex.Mesonotum richly rugose, polished smooth or with some alutaceous in between macrosculpturing.Parapside with 2-3 foveolae on lateral margin, otherwise densely alutaceous.Axilla finely alutaceous, with 3-4 foveolae mesally.Scutellum weakly alutaceous, without microsulci.Discrimen simple.Crenulate sulcus deep, crenulations well isolated from propodeum, but without a border or carina between them.Interfoveolar area distinctly crenulate or subcrenulate, polished smooth or weakly microreticulate between crenulations; post-foveolar area with several and stout arcuations, area between them polished smooth (Fig. 34).Propodeum (Fig. 32): flank polished smooth, with 3 sparsely distributed foveolae; other foveolae on propodeum arranged in a way to form a central lace or loop, similar to that of H. cylindricus, but less well defined, formed usually by 2 rows of foveolae; weakly alutaceous between foveolae, except transversely corrugate; also with sparse punctations.Parapetiolar depression elongate, subcrenulate.Spiracular groove inconspicuous or undefined, its mesal margin not differentiated, lateral margin more evident, but ending before reaching middle of propodeum.Spiracle: anterior and posterior plates smooth or weakly alutaceous.Metapleuron posteriorly finely or inconspicuously reticulate-rugose; remainder with sparse foveolae, densely punctate and very finely rugose among them; not prominent, perfectly contiguous with propodeum, and entirely covered with fine dense white pilosity, also with sparse long hairs in between, except along narrow area posteriorly; posterior margin open.Hind coxa mesally finely and densely transverse-striate.Hind femur unarmed basad of basal tooth.Hind tibia posteriorly simple (as Fig. 147 in Aguiar, 1998).Anterior wing: vein 2r meeting 2+3Rs before apex of pterostigma, its length much shorter than 4Rs (as Fig. 70); 2Cua apically shaped as a sharp hook, curved about 90°.
Color -Dark brown; head ferrugineous, but clypeus, mandible base, and antenna basally showing lighter tones.Wings lightly and uniformly infuscate in amber yellow, darker on costal cell; veins dark brown.Melanic specimen entirely black, except mandible basally light brown, and wings lightly but uniformly infuscate., and Tables 1-2.

Biometry
Male -Similar to female, except for certain highly variable features, particularly the sculpturing pattern of tergites.Most differences in relation to females are described next.Occipital carina ending closer to hypostomal carina; foveolae on propodeum larger (in relation to propodeum) than in females and more irregularly distributed (although still more numerous centrally); microsculpturing in between foveolae less evident in small specimens, tending to polished smooth; metapleuron on apical half reticulate-rugose in one of the two smallest specimens examined, otherwise as for females.In large specimens T3 basally is more strongly striate, apically with some short striations; T4-5 on entire apical 3/4, or little more, with parallel longitudinal aciculation; T6-7 matt because of dense longitudinal microreticulation, similar to fine fingerprinting pattern; T8-9 weakly alutaceous, almost smooth on T9; pygidium weakly projected, beginning to form a tubular structure, or indistinct.
Color -Lighter intensities tend to be more accentuated in smaller specimens, becoming progressively more reddish brown on pro-and mesothorax, or light brown/yellow, particularly on front and mid legs, and hind tarsi; color for large specimens as for females.Melanic form as for corresponding female, except wings more strongly infuscate.
Comments -Very similar to H. ruficeps, from which it can be isolated by having distinct sculpturing patterns on tergites, especially T4 on apical 2/3 longitudinally aciculate (apical 1/3 coarser in H. ruficeps) (Figs. 35 vs. 44); interfoveolar area crenulate or subcrenulate, post-foveolar area with several stout arcuations, and inter and post-foveolar areas polished smooth in between macrosculpturing, or at most with traces of microreticulation (Figs. 34 vs. 43); values for Ov/Ptl and Ov/Tt smaller, fb/aOv larger; and head with dark marks.
Males of H. ruficeps have an interfoveolar area always somewhat subcrenulate, or entirely subcrenulate; the smallest specimen observed by Aguiar (1998) also has 5 stout arcuations on post-foveolar area.This complicates the characterization of males of H. colombiensis, but does not make a strong argument for the synonymy with H. ruficeps, essentially because males of Hemistephanus are always much less characteristic, and much more variable morphologically than females (Aguiar, 1998).
In the holotype, the transversely arcuate-aciculate T5 is atypical for the species; the most common pattern, longitudinally aciculate slightly convergent, forming a V-shapped pattern, is the same observed in H. ruficeps (as in Fig. 41).
Variation -Two specimens (! OSUC22211, and !OSUC22212) from Costa Rica correspond to a melanic form of the species, with body practically entirely black, and infuscate wings (see description); in all other features, they are virtually identical to typical H. colombiensis.In addition, the melanic specimens were collected together with typical specimens, sharing therefore same provenance and collecting date.
Redescription -Female.Head (Fig. 36) polished smooth in between rugosities.Frons ventrally transverse rugose, changing to oblique dorsally.Hind tubercles illdefined, isolated, their margin mesally irregular, converging toward first carina of vertex.Vertex glabrous; 1-2 interocellar carinae, the first one complete, bladeshaped, the second ill-defined or absent; rugosities strongly undulate, longitudinal, parallel, or weakly convergent; weaker posteriorly, on post-vertex disappearing or becoming rugulosities, which assume various orientations in different specimens.Post-vertex seen laterally simple, convex.Gena smooth, not prominent.Occipital carina dorsally marginate, widening progressively up to 2.5 times wider latero-ventrally, where it is subtriangularly projected; ventrally narrowing quickly, disappearing well before reaching hypostomal carina; seen from behind subcircular, but ventrally V-shaped, strongly convergent, the sides ending very close to one another, near base of hypostomal carina.Post-genal bridge deeply invaginate and mostly enclosed by the post-genae, which are projected in point over it, covering partially a wide and deep cavity (as in fig.116 in Aguiar, 1998), more evident immediately behind hypostomal carina; this cavity with dense pilosity of short golden hairs; overall structure similar to that observed in H. orfilanus.Thorax -Pronotum (Fig. 37): apical carina changing from narrow centrally to very wide laterally; distinctly emarginate centrally; dorsal area polished smooth or finely transverse-alutaceous.Colo apically much wider than high, almost flat, polished smooth; then with wide and shallow longitudinal depression; 6-8 oblique carinae (7 in holotype) usually stout, most or all of them incomplete, sometimes extending inside central depression.Pronotal fold distinct, not excavate, or shallow.Preannular area with a few rugosities in front of the conspicuous preannular ruga; space between rugosities polished smooth.Semiannular dorso-laterally or laterally with several foveolae, polished smooth in between; ventro-laterally and posteriorly smooth or, in large specimens, with rugosities straight and transverse, sometimes fused with foveolae; dorso-posterior margin entirely polished smooth.Femoral impression distinct, disappearing anteriorly among preannular sculpturing; anteriorly with transverse rugosities, posteriorly polished smooth; ventral area with 3-7 (usually 5) transverse carinae behind pronotal fold, remainder polished smooth or weakly alutaceous.Prosternum apical half approximately flat, with numerous transverse subparallel rugosities, which are fine or nearly absent in small specimens, and strong and continued posteriorly as subcrenulations along line of junction of hemisternites in large specimens.Mesonotum polished smooth between macroscultpure.Parapside covered by foveolae or microfoveolae.Axilla polished smooth or finely alutaceous between foveolae.Scutellum without microsulci.Discrimen simple.Crenulate sulcus deep, with a border at limit with propodeum; crenulations well isolated from propodeum; central crenulation with parallel sides.Interfoveolar area subcrenulate, typically with 2-3 weak rugosities, or rugosities rarely absent; tegument smooth or sometimes partially finely alutaceous; post-foveolar area with about 2 arcuations, polished smooth or finely alutaceous between them (Fig. 39).Propodeum (Fig. 38), including flanks, covered by large, numerous punctures, separated from each other about 1/3 or less of their diameter; conspicuously transverse-alutaceous between them; sometimes a series of microdepressions aligned centro-longitudinally (present on holotype).Parapetiolar depression wide and elongate, with 1-2 fine transverse rugae, sometimes partially fused to foveolae anteriorly; its surface polished smooth.Spiracular groove reaching crenulate sulcus, but not fused to it; from nearly smooth to subcrenulate, anteriorly rugulose, ending in a transverse carina which isolates it from crenulate sulcus; lateral margin simple; surface polished or weakly alutaceous.Spiracle plates alutaceous.Metapleuron with long sparse pilosity; centrally also with dense white pilosity, and reticulate-rugose, changing to foveolate on its extreme anterior; slightly projected laterally; posterior margin open.Hind coxa mesally transverserugulose.Hind femur unarmed basad of basal tooth.Hind tibia posteriorly centrally slightly compressed; the resulting carina slightly deviating from longitudinal axis (as in fig.145 in Aguiar, 1998).Anterior wing: vein 2r meeting 2+3Rs basad of apex of pterostigma, and much shorter than 4Rs; vein 2Cua apically curved and clavate.
Color -Black; head red, darkened above, on vertex and dorsal part of coronal area.Hind basitarsus dark with reddish tone; sometimes reddish also on ventral angle of pronotum.Wings clear hyaline, except sometimes costal cell basally weakly infuscate; veins dark brown.and Tables 1-2.
Variation -The single specimen from Venezuela, a female, differs from specimens from Costa Rica by having the following features: carinae on colo weak and delicate; semiannular dorso-laterally with 4-5 more or less aligned foveolae, ventro-laterally microreticulatealutaceous; femoral impression distinct, more clearly defined, subcrenulate; ventral area entirely microreticulate-alutaceous; crenulate sulcus imperfectly isolated from propodeum; centro-longidudinal microfoveolae absent; longitudinal strigulation on T4 parallel, and taking about 70% of dorsal part; base of "Y" of pygidial groove inconspicuous.Head uniformly dark orange.
Comments (female) -Very similar and certainly related to H. orfilanus, from which it can be distinguished by having the head darkened dorsally, polished smooth in between rugosities; apical carina of pronotum more deeply emarginate and wider laterally than in H. orfilanus, and dorsally polished smooth or weakly alutaceous; colo with 6-8 stout carinae (against 4-7 weak or delicate carinae on H. orfilanus); semiannular polished smooth centro-laterally; and inter-and post-foveolar areas polished smooth or alutaceous in between macrosculpturing, without the characteristic microreticulation of H. orfilanus.Also similar to H. elimatus, from which the present species can be promptly isolated by its highly modified hypostomal region.
Male -Generally similar to the female, except by the following: pronotum with 5 carinae on colo, and 0-2 foveolae on semiannular, but with strong depressions and transverse rugosities dorso-laterally; alutaceous in between macrosculpturing; ventral area microreticulate.Propodeum with foveolae relatively larger and closer than observed in the females, the narrow space between them alutaceous.Spiracular groove weakly microreticulate.About 70% of T4 covered by longitudinal strigulation.Color differs from females especially by presence of lighter tones: head orange, front and mid legs brownish, all hind tarsi light brown; wing veins light brown; remainder of body black with reddish tone, distinctly lighter than on females., and Tables 3-4.
Variation and biometry -No significant morphological variation observed between the studied specimens and the holotype.Updated biometric values for females are illustrated in Figs.1-18 (sp.5) and listed in Tables 1-2; updated values for males are illustrated in Figs.19-28 (sp. 5) and listed in Tables 3-4.
Distribution -Brazil (AM, ES), Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru.The specimen from Costa Rica represents the first record of this species in Central America.
Variation -No significant qualitative variation observed in relation to data presented by Aguiar (1998).Biometric values for females are illustrated in Figs.1-18 (sp. 14) and listed in Tables 1-2; updated values for males are presented in Figs.19-28 (sp. 14) and Tables 3-4
Variation -The only new specimen examined for this work, a female, shows atypically weak carinae on colo; preannular ruga weakly defined; inter-and post-foveolar areas with microreticulation present but weaker than in typical specimens; and spiracular groove with lateral margin widening anteriorly, but resulting area with foveae or irregular sculpturing, thus less distinct than in typical specimens.
This species is very similar to H. costaricensis sp.n., described in the present work; see respective description for diagnostic features.
Errata in Aguiar ( 1998): (1) The key to species, for female specimens, at couplet 13, mentions vertex with sculpturing transverse or in concentric pattern, but the usual pattern for H. orfilanus is longitudinal; the corresponding fig.77 of that publication illustrates an exception.(2) The correct limits for ratio io/ol in the keys are 2.36-2.67,not "2.36-2.55".
Description -Female (holotype).Head (Figs. 45,46,48,50) polished smooth between rugosities.Frons arcuate-areolate, ventrally more transverse, latero-dorsally more vertically.Hind tubercles isolated, almost meeting mesally, but not contiguous, ending on first interocellar carina.Vertex glabrous; two distinct interocellar carinae, the first complete, blade-shaped, continued laterally as a weak rugosity; the second carina small, but with same structure; rugosities delicate, irregular, restricted to central part of vertex; laterally transverse; posteriorly smooth, including post-vertex, which is nearly flat.Gena smooth, not prominent; ventral half widely covered by dense white pilosity.Oc-cipital carina more or less uniformly wide, translucent, centro-dorsally upturned, generating a distinct invagination ; apically narrowing until disappearing abruptly far from hypostomal carina; seen from behind subcircular, converging strongly ventrally, the sides ending very close to each other, forming a "V".Post-genal bridge deeply invaginate and mostly enclosed by the post-genae, which are projected in point over it, covering partially a wide and deep cavity (as in fig.116 in Aguiar, 1998), more evident immediatly behind hypostomal carina; this cavity with dense pilosity of short golden hairs.
Thorax -Pronotum (Figs.47, 50) apical margin deeply emarginate, U-shaped, weakly upturned, not forming a border with dorsal area.Colo polished smooth, dorsally nearly flat, laterally with vestiges of transverse carinae (visible only with tangential light).Pronotal fold distinct, but as a transverse laminar carina, not excavate; placed anteriorly, making preannular area slightly longer than colo.Preannular area mostly polished smooth, but with 4 transverse laminar rugae, the first and fourth dorsally incomplete; also with a few and obsolescent rugulosities and foveolae.Preannular ruga indistinct.Semiannular almost entirely polished smooth, dorso-laterally with a few and weak foveolae.Femoral impression distinct, polished smooth; ventral area anteriorly with rugosities from preannular, posteriorly with subtle oblique striation; polished smooth between sculpturing.Mesonotum polished smooth between macrosculpturing.Parapside laterally covered by a large fovea; otherwise polished smooth.Axilla and scutellum polished smooth, with a few marginal punctures; scutellum without microsulci.Discrimen simple.Crenulate sulcus deep, and propodeum anteriorly bordered, completely isolating the crenulations (Fig. 49).Interfoveolar area polished smooth post-foveolar area with 3 arcuations.Propodeum (Figs. 49-50): flank indistinct, covered by punctures from propodeum and by spiracular groove; overall area of propodeum generally densely foveolate, centro-longitudinally with stripe of microfoveolae in between foveolae; polished smooth inside and between foveolae; anteriorly a distinct polished smooth area lateral to spiracular groove.Parapetiolar impression elongate, subcrenulate.Spiracular groove long, ending near crenulate sulcus, but with small space between them; lateral margin simple, not forming a carina; surface weakly but densely subcrenulate, generating a corrugate look.Spiracle plates polished smooth.Metapleuron entirely areolaterugose, formed by large areoles, with long hair centrally in each one; otherwise glabrous, polished smooth inside and between areoles; slightly projected laterally; posterior margin open.Hind coxa mesally on basal half finely rugulose, changing to weakly striate on remaining area.Hind femur unarmed basad of basal tooth.Hind tibia posteriorly centrally weakly compressed (as in fig.138 in Aguiar, 1998).Anterior wing vein 2r meeting 2+3Rs beyond apex of pterostigma, with 1/3 of length of 4Rs; 2Cua hook-shaped, internal angle with 1Cu acute (54°).
Color -Head orange; remainder of body dark brown, with red tones on propodeum, and lighter tones of brown on front and mid legs; hind tarsi lighter than corresponding tibia.Wings hyaline, veins light brown.Paratype color entirely different (see "Variation").

Male -Unknown.
Variation -The paratype, a female from Trinidad, differs from the holotype in the following: frons arcuaterugose, from transversely ventrally to vertically dorsolaterally; mesal margin of posterior tubercles almost meeting, but ending near first interocellar carina; a third interocellar carina, very small, also present; rugosity on vertex transverse only posteriorly; carinae on preannular weaker, only the third one complete; preannular ruga weak but distinct; scutellum with small group of foveolae on each lateral angle; metapleuron moderately projected; hind coxa mesally delicately striate, tending to smooth centrally, basally sculpturing is stronger and more irregular; hind femur with minuscule tubercle basad of basal tooth; vein 2r as long as 2/5 of 4Rs; internal angle of 2Cua with 1Cu measures 47°; T5 refringent aciculation on a smaller area, and placed more centrally.Color: head ant T4-5 dark brown; remainder of body light brown, front legs lighter than body, hind tarsi yellowish.Gaster from T6, including ovipositor, lost.
Comments -Morphologically, this species is an intermediate form between H. adustus, with which it shares 2r meeting 2+3Rs before apex of pterostigma, and size and general structure typical of Hemistephanus, and the group velutinus/macrurus, with which it shares the shape of vein 2Cua, number and position of M+Cu setae, and structure of pronotum, among other characters; but differs immediately from these species by the highly modified hypostomal region, the deep anterior emargination on colo (Fig. 48), and occipital carina with dorsal emargination (Fig. 46).Generally more similar to H. velutinus than to any other species, but isolated, in addition to the features mentioned above, by having gena ventral half with dense long white pilosity (Fig. 50 Abdomen -T4 on basal 1/5 and apical 1/5 transverse-alutaceous, centrally weakly aciculate (not refringent); T5-9 alutaceous.

Biometry
Comments -The examined specimen is the first male known for the species.The distinct transverse crenulation on propodeum place this species definitely within the group marginalis/submaculatus, isolating it from all other Hemistephanus.At the same time, the examined specimen has several of the diagnostic features for the female of H. submaculatus, as follows: semiannular laterally polished smooth; corrugation on propodeum restricted to lateral part, absent centrally; and values for ratios io/ol, oc/DO, Pnl/cw, and Pn/Cb within the known ranges for females, being at the same time very distinct from the same values for the only known female of H. marginalis.These ratios are used in the key to species in Aguiar (1998) to help isolate these two species; the ratio Ptl/T3l is also used in the key, but it is not minimally equivalent between males and females.
The head black, concolorous with the remaining body, and the presence of striation dorsally on semiannular, are similar to H. marginalis; however, the deep black of this male suggests it might be a melanic form of H. submaculatus.Melanic forms are known and were described for other species of Hemistephanus (e.g., H. cylindricus in Aguiar, 1998;and H. colombiensis, in the present work).The striation on semiannular, in its turn, is restricted to the dorsal part in the observed male, while covering the entire semiannular in H. marginalis.
Frons sculpturing is intermediate between these two species, tending to ventrally transverse and laterodorsally oblique, but rugose, forming some elongate areolations; however, it is not "distinctly reticulate in all its extension", as mentioned by Aguiar (1998) for H. marginalis.The hind tibia contrasts with the strong compression, leaving a distinct carina, in females of marginalis and submaculatus, but the absence of compression in males is common in several other Hemistephanus (e.g., H. erythrocephalus, H. tener).
Color -Holotype: Head reddish, darkened dorsally; thorax, including propodeum, front and mid legs, dark brown with reddish tones, the pronotum lighter than remainder of thorax; hind legs and petiole dark brown, except light brown tarsomeres; gaster brown, lighter than petiole, but much darker than hind tarsi.Wings weakly infuscate; veins light brown.), and Tables 1-2.

Biometry
Male -Very similar to female, except for the following: colo with only one carina on each side, on base of pronotal fold; semiannular without strigulation and weakly alutaceous; interfoveolar area subcrenulate; microreticulation on basal lobe of post-foveolar area absent; metapleuron entirely areolate-rugose; axilla weakly alutaceous; scutellum polished smooth; space between foveolae of propodeum polished smooth or weakly alutaceous; hind tibia posteriorly with weak compression, weakly deviating from longitudinal axis; T3 with strong and conspicuous hexagonmicroreticulate, practically longitudinally aciculate in one specimen (OSUC22288).), and Tables 3-4.
phological variation observed here in the several available specimens of H. villosus.
The lectotype designation for Stephanus villosus Kieffer is being made in order to stabilize the application of this name.
Comments -Also similar to H. collarifer and H. carioca, from which it can be isolated, in addition to diagnostic features discussed in Aguiar (1998), by having a hind basitarsus distinctly shorter (i.e., btl/w smaller), spiracular groove reaching crenulate sulcus, and by the FIGURES 13-18.Values of morphometric ratios for all examined specimens of all species.Females.Species numbers as in Table 1.Ratios or measurements: Ov, ovipositor length; Ptl/T3l, maximum length of petiole/ maximum length of T3; Ptl/w, petiole maximum length/ maximum width; T3l/T4w, maximum length of T3/ maximum width of T4; T4l/w, T4 maximum length/ maximum width; Tt, total body length, from base of anterior coronal tubercle to apex of pygidium.
90° angle between veins 1Cu and 2Cua (acute angle in collarifer and carioca).From H. collarifer it can also be isolated by the T3 basally only with fine rugulosities (Figs.54 vs. 55), ratio Ov/Ptl smaller, and shape of occipital carina, which narrows abruptly ventrally, then proceeds as a straight line towards hypostomal carina, the sides parallel (progressively narrower, and convergent toward hypostomal carina in H. collarifer).
FIGURES 25-28.Values of morphometric ratios for all examined specimens of all species.Males.Species numbers as in Table 1.Ratios: btl/w, hind basitarsus maximum length/ maximum width; fl3/fl2, length of flagellomere 3/ length of flagellomere 2; Ptl/w, petiole maximum length/ maximum width; Tt, total body length, from base of anterior coronal tubercle to apex of pygidium.
Distribution -Brazil (GO), and Argentina.A single female specimen, without gaster, from Costa Rica, has the vertex covered by a microsculpturing pattern with a dense and conspicuous granular look (Fig. 56).The intensity of this pattern seems unique among Hemistephanus.However, the overall structure of the specimen is most similar to that of H. erythrocephalus, in particular the pronotum, although the carinae are weak, making more evident the polished smooth finish of the entire pronotum, in spite of the macrosculpturing.In addition, the space between foveolae of propodeum, and the interfoveolar area, are both polished smooth, features also distinct from H. erythrocephalus.While this may represent an undescribed species, there is also the possibility that the microsculpturing on vertex is only an aberration, fact which is not uncommon in Stephanidae.As a single and incomplete specimen, it is also doubtfully representative as a type specimen.It is premature, therefore, to propose a new taxon without additional speci-mens to confirm the observed morphology is not part of mere individual variation.

KEY TO SPECIES OF HEMISTEPHANUS ENDERLEIN
The volume and wide range of new and complementary information presented here do not make unviable the keys presented in Aguiar (1998), but its incorporation in a revised key, presented below, will be useful in increasing the precision of the identifications.An updated key for males, however, would offer only a modest improvement; because of this, the reader must preferably refer to Aguiar (1998), as well as check new information presented in the body of the present work, when trying to identify a male specimen of Hemistephanus.
-Figure numbers in the format "fig.X" (lower case) in the key below refer to Aguiar (1998); the format "Fig.X" (upper case) refer to figures in the present work.
. n.The reexamination of the holotype and paratype of H. artiosulcatus for this work, revealed the following errata in Aguiar (1998): (1) legends for figs.85-86 are inverted; fig.85 illustrates the paratype, and fig.86 the holotype;(2) the key to species for female specimens mentions, in couplet 11, vertex with long and strong hairs for H. artiosulcatus versus delicate and short hairs for H. collarifer, but this information is inverted and incomplete: in H. artiosulcatus the hairs on vertex are scarce, short, delicate, curved and without a defined orientation; in H. collarifer the hairs are frequent, but well spaced, and long, strong, straight, and decumbent anteriorly.
appear underlined (only digits which changed are indicated) or, when only a single specimen was previously available, the new values are indicated in italics.Data for Ov/Abd are entirely new.Asterisc (*): new in Hemistephanus.

TABLE 2 .
Aguiar (1998)hometric ratios for species of Hemistephanus.Females.Ratios listed in descending order of taxonomic value.Limits for Ov and Tt correspond to absolute values, in millimeters.Legends: a, additional specimens in relation toAguiar (1998); aOv, length of dark apex of ovipositor valve; fb, length of white subapical band of ovipositor valve; Gsl, post-abdomen length, measured laterally from apex of petiole to apex of pygidium; Hdl, head lateral length from base of anterior coronal tubercle to base of occipital carina; n, number of specimens measured; Ov, ovipositor length, from origin to apex; Pnl, pronotum length, measured dorsally from centre of posterior margin of semiannular to apex of colo; Ptl/w, petiole maximum length over maximum dorsal width; T3l, maximum length of tergite 3 (gastral tergite 2); T4l/w, tergite 4 (gastral tergite 3) maximum length over maximum width; Tt, total length, measured laterally from base of anterior coronal tubercle to apex of pygidium.Numbers between parentheses indicate number of measured specimens when different from n. New values in relation toAguiar (1998)appear underlined (only digits which changed are indicated) or, when only a single specimen was previously available, the new values are indicated in italics.Asterisc (*): new in Hemistephanus.

TABLE 4 .
Aguiar (1998)hometric ratios for species of Hemistephanus.Males.Ratios listed in descending order of taxonomic value.Limits for Tt correspond to absolute values, in millimeters.Legends: a, additional specimens in relation toAguiar (1998); fl2, maximum length of second flagellomere; fl3, maximum length of third flagellomere; n, number of specimens measured; Ptl/w, petiole maximum length over maximum dorsal width; T3l, maximum length of tergite 3 (gastral tergite 2); T4l/w, tergite 4 (gastral tergite 3) maximum length over maximum width; Tt, total length, measured laterally from base of anterior coronal tubercle to apex of pygidium.Numbers between parentheses indicate number of measured specimens when different from n. New values in relation toAguiar (1998)appear underlined (only digits which changed are indicated) or, when only a single specimen was previously available, the new values are indicated in italics.Asterisc (*): first record or new in Hemistephanus.
Aguiar (1998)gential light); discrimen formed by narrow, shallow, elongate foveae; crenulate sulcus with central crenulations extending over the propodeum, or isolated from it by a strong border, but this border also extending over the propodeum; interfoveolar area polished smooth, with no trace of alutaceous microsculpturing.T3 microsculpturing stronger, almost aciculate.Synonymy -The holotype of Stephanus villosus Kieffer could not be examined byAguiar (1998), but was studied for this work.The direct comparison of the re- FIGURES 1-6.Values of morphometric ratios for all examined specimens of all species.Females.Species numbers as in Table1.Ratios: io/ol, interocellar distance/ maximum diameter of left posterior ocellum; Ov/Abd, ovipositor length/ gaster length; io/oo, interocellar distance/ ocello-ocular distance; Ov/Ptl, ovipositor length/ petiole length; Ov/Tt, ovipositor length/ total body length, excluding ovipositor; Pnl/cw, pronotum maximum length/ minimum width.