Rediscovery of Melanepyris ( Hymenoptera : Bethylidae ) : a new synonym of Epyris

Melanepyris Kieffer, 1913 was proposed to accommodate a single species of Epyris Westwood, 1832, E. imicola Kieffer, 1913, mainly based on the absence of the posterior propodeal carina. Today, Melanepyris includes only two nominal species. The type-material of these species has been considered lost since their original description. In this study, the single known adult male (holotype) of Melanepyris asiaticus Kieffer, 1922 from the Philippines has been rediscovered, redescribed and illustrated. Melanepyris asiaticus is transferred to Epyris Westwood due to the following features: scutellar groove absent, well separated scutellar pits and lower mesopleural fovea large and with undefined upper margin. We checked the original description of M. imicola and concluded that it also fits the definition of Epyris perfectly, except for the (described) absence of a posterior carina. However, the thickness of the posterior carina of the propodeal disc varies within species of different Epyrinae genera. The diagnostic characters used by Kieffer to create Melanepyris and other genera from Epyris are briefly discussed. Melanepyris is proposed as a new junior synonym of Epyris, with the transfer of M. imicola to Epyris.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
The holotype of M. asiaticus was borrowed from the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN).
Measurements and indices used in this study are as follows: body length -from the apex of clypeus to the posterior margin of the last metasomal segment, excluding the male genitalia or the female sting; (LH) length of head in frontal viewfrom the vertex crest to the median apical margin of clypeus; (WH) width of head in frontal view -maximum width including eyes; (WF) width of frons in frontal view -minimum width, usually at a virtual line that crosses the anterior margin of compound eyes; (HE) height of eye in lateral view -across its maximum height (length); (OOL) ocellar-ocular line in laterodorsal view -the shortest distance from posterior margin of compound eye to posterior ocellus; (WOT) width of ocellar triangle in frontal view -maximum width, including ocelli; (DAO) diameter of anterior ocellus in frontal view; (VOL) vertex-ocular line in dorsal view, distance from eye top to vertex crest.
The nomenclature of the integument sculpture follows HARRIS (1979), and general terms follow EVANS (1964) and AZEVEDO (1999).
Diagnosis.Male.Length 2.0 mm.Black.Head elongate, temple parallel.Eye glabrous.Scutellum pits round.Propodeal disc slightly longer than wide, median carina complete, discal carina absent on posterior half, lateral carina present, posterior carina absent.Fore wing with stigma elongate, metacarpus absent.Head elongate, temple parallel.Eye glabrous, HE 0.33x VOL, close to mandible.Antenna with 13 segments, pubescent, segments II and III slightly longer than thick, others 2.0x as long as thick.Thorax narrower than head.Pronotum elongate, 1.5x as long as mesonotum.Parapsidal furrow parallel.Scutellum pits round.Propodeal disc slightly longer than wide, coriaceous, median carina complete, discal carina absent on posterior half, lateral carina present, posterior carina absent.Fore wing with basal vein more inclined than transverse vein, but not more elongate, radial vein 0.75x as long as basal vein, not reaching margin, stigma elongate, metacarpus absent, submedian cell slightly wider than median cell.Legs brown, trochanter simple, slightly longer than thick, fore tarsus with segment I as long as segments II-IV together, which are slightly longer than thick, segment V longer than segments III-IV together, claw simple.
Remarks.The holotype is considered lost.It was supposed to be deposited either at the MNHN or at the Musée Royal de l'Afrique Centrale (MRAC) in Tervuren, because the types from three of the five species described by KIEFFER (1913b) had been deposited at the former institution, and one at the latter.We have visited both museums but have not been able to find it.Thus, the description below corresponds to an adaptation of the original one.KIEFFER (1913a, b) stated that the propodeal disc of Epyris imicola lacks the posterior carina.Since the holotype, and only specimen known for this species has been lost, we cannot con-firm this condition.However, even though KIEFFER (1922) described the propodeal disc of M. asiaticus lacking a posterior carina , a careful examination of the holotype indicates that this feature is present, though inconspicuous.Thus, it is also possible that E. imicola bears an inconspicuous posterior carina on the propodeal disc.KIEFFER (1913a) established eight genera from several species identified as belonging to Epyris at that time.From these genera, Parepyris, Psilepyris, and Artiepyris were synonymized with Epyris; Lyssepyris and Xantepyris were synonymized with Pseudisobrachium; Chlorepyris was synonymized with Rhabdepyris; Misepyris was synonymized with Holepyris; and Lytepyris was synonymized with Disepyris.Therefore, only Melanepyris remained as a valid genus.However, Chlorepyris had its generic status recently reinstated by WAICHERT & AZEVEDO (2009).

DISCUSSION
The main characters used by KIEFFER (1914) to key out Melanepyris from the related genera such as Xantepyris, Dipristocera Kieffer, 1914 and Lyssepyris were exactly the same ones used to separate the genus from Epyris.However, the eye pilosity, the thickness of the posterior carina of the propodeal disc, and the number of teeth on the claws are very variable within species of Epyris and in many other genera of Epyrinae.The eyes can be either glabrous or hairy; the posterior carina of the propodeal disc varies from absent to very thick and complete; and the claw can be simple, bifid or even trifid.Thus, these conditions are meaningless to establish a genus in Epyrinae.The few previous cladistic analyzes of Bethylidae emphasize this argument (see LANES & AZEVEDO 2008, POLASZEK & KROMBEIN 1994, TERAYAMA 1995, 1996, 2003, 2006).

Rediscovery of Melanepyris (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae): a new synonym of Epyris
Melanepyris Kieffer, 1913was proposed to accommodate a single species of Epyris Westwood, 1832, E. imicolaKieffer, 1913, mainly based on the absence of the posterior propodeal carina.Today, Melanepyris includes only two nominal species.The type-material of these species has been considered lost since their original description.In this study, the single known adult male (holotype) of Melanepyris asiaticus Kieffer, 1922 from the Philippines has been rediscovered, redescribed and illustrated.Melanepyris asiaticus is transferred to Epyris Westwood due to the following features: scutellar groove absent, well separated scutellar pits and lower mesopleural fovea large and with undefined upper margin.We checked the original description of M. imicola and concluded that it also fits the definition of Epyris perfectly, except for the (described) absence of a posterior carina.However, the thickness of the posterior carina of the propodeal disc varies within species of different Epyrinae genera.The diagnostic characters used by Kieffer to create Melanepyris and other genera from Epyris are briefly discussed.Melanepyris is proposed as a new junior synonym of Epyris, with the transfer of M. imicola to Epyris. ABSTRACT.