1a-c: Chrysocharis faces: C. crassiscapus (Thomson) (left), C. clarkae Yoshimoto (center), and C. tristis Hansson (right)
2a-b: Chrysocharis viridis (Nees) female antenna (left), and male antenna (right)
3a-c: Chrysocharis propodea with petioles: C. acoris (Walker) (left), C. walleyi Yoshimoto (center), and C. albipes (Ashmead) (right) [s.r. = "sloping roof" of nucha]
4a-c: Chrysocharis propodea with petioles: C. crassiscapus (left), C. entedonoides (Walker) (center), and C. occidentalis (Girault) (right)
5a: Chrysocharis forewing
Chrysocharis chlorus Graham and C. imbrasus (Walker)
Two very similar species, possible synonyms, intermediate with Neochrysocharis. Mandibular formula 3:3. Flagellar formula 3,2,3 in both sexes. Postmarginal vein 1.5x stigmal vein length. Propodeum with vague median carina formed by rugae. Petiole subquadrate to slightly longer than broad. Separable from Neochrysocharis mainly in that the interscrobal ridge is very short in females (typical in Chrysocharis) and does not reach or come near reaching transverse frontal groove.
6a-b: Chrysocharis chlorus Graham face (left) [IR = interscrobal ridge], female antenna (center), and male antenna (right)
Chrysocharis (Zaommomyia): Scrobal grooves reaching transverse groove separately, extending below toruli as distinct grooves, close-together throughout their length; triangular area present on upper frons immediately above transverse ridge, below median ocellus, different color and/or sculpture from rest of frons, sometimes sharply angled and set off by an arched dorsal ridge. Males with a basal whorl of erect setae on each funicular segment. Each of these characters can be difficult to assess, especially in females with a collapsed head or males missing antennae, but in every case I have been able to confirm placement of specimens of known identity using at least one of the characters given above. Chrysocharis s.s. lack all of the above characters, but the interscrobal ridge/upper scrobal depression state is variable in regard to facial collapse, and should not be the only criteria for identification of Zaommomyia specimens when the face is collapsed or otherwise difficult to assess. The color of the area above the transverse frontal groove is usually difficult to assess without strong doubt. My preferred characters for identification of this group are the extension of the scrobal depressions below the toruli as distinct grooves, and the characteristic whorls of setae on the male flagellum.
Achrysocharoides: Distinguished only through using a combination of characters: Eyes densely setose. Transverse frontal groove always straight, not v-shaped (but may be bent medially if face is collapsed). Scrobal grooves sometimes ending far apart at transverse groove. Apical anellus usually much broader than long, rarely subquadrate. Mesoscutum and especially scutellum often with distinct groups of pits or longitudinal foveae. Postmarginal vein usually about 1x stigmal vein length, rarely up to 1.4x stigmal vein length (in which case the scutellum has groups of pits). Petiole at most 1.4x longer than broad, weakly sculpted.This genus can be the most difficult to distinguish from Chrysocharis. When the scutellar pits are not apparent, it is best identified using a combination of the other characters, especially the transverse frontal groove, densely setose eyes, and short postmarginal vein. As always, frontal groove characters are difficult to accurately assess when the face is collapsed. Certain Chrysocharis have one or more of each of the characters used to define Achrysocharoides, except for the scutellar pits, but can be disqualified from being Achrysocharoides by having an elongate postmarginal vein or petiole. The best means of identification is through attempting to exclude Achrysocharoides or identifying the specimen to species or species-group.
Holarcticesa: Transverse frontal groove nearly straight (but may be bent medially if face is collapsed). Flagellar formula strictly 1,4,1; scape relatively long and narrow: about 5x longer than broad, strongly flattened laterally. Postmarginal vein about 2x stigmal vein length. Propodeum without median carina, with transverse anterior fovea; callus with 2 setae. Sometimes difficult to distinguish, best done using flagellar formula and the tiny anellus, attempting to exclude Holarcticesa.
Neochrysocharis: Scrobal grooves reaching transverse groove separately, extending slightly below toruli ventrally.
Closterocerus: Scrobal grooves reaching transverse groove separately, extending slightly below toruli ventrally. Mesoscutal midlobe sometimes with 1 pair of setae. Forewing sometimes with concentric transverse fuscate bands.
Chrysonotomyia: Clypeus set off by distinct sutures. Transverse frontal groove straight, not v-shaped (but may be bent medially if face is collapsed); scrobal depressions reaching transverse groove separately, very close together throughout their length. Mesoscutal midlobe with 1 pair of setae (the posterior pair). Postmarginal vein shorter than stigmal vein; 2 setal tracks radiating from stigma; radial cell bare. Petiole tiny and unsculpted. Only superficially resembling Chrysocharis.
Omphale: Clypeus usually set off by distinct sutures (dorsal suture rarely missing), often much broader than long or protruding from face. Face in most species with a strong transverse ridge between toruli and clypeus (may be apparently present in some small Chrysocharis if the face is collapsed). Scrobal grooves almost always reaching transverse groove separately, rarely meeting at or before groove. Mandibles exodont in a few species. Apical anellus not enlarged in females; heads of flagellar peg sensilla always slanting, asymmetrical (type 2 or 3), sometimes large and elongate. Propodeum usually very short, smooth, without median carina or anterior fovea; callus with 2 setae; petiolar foramen often large, rendering propodeum strongly emarginate posteriorly (a character not to be dismissed!). Mesoscutal midlobe with only 1 pair of setae (the posterior pair) in a few species. Petiole always much broader than long and unsculpted. Male genitalia with enlarged volsellar setae in nearly all species. Seldom easily confused, except in Omphale with an indistinct clypeus, which are usually easily distinguishable by the scrobal grooves. Nevertheless, slide-mounting is sometimes the best way to identify Omphale, using genitalic and flagellar characters, although this is most likely to be needed for distinguishing it from Perditorulus, Neochrysocharis, and Closterocerus, not from Chrysocharis.
Proacrias: Scrobal grooves reaching transverse groove separately.
Pediobius: Propodeum with plicae formed by carinae in nearly all species (greatly elongate if not). Petiole with dorsal and ventral extensions. Scrobal grooves reaching transverse groove separately in nearly all species. Stigma very small, not apparing petiolate, postmarginal vein at most 1.5x its length.
return to top
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1963. Additions and corrections to the British list of Eulophidae (Hym., Chalcidoidea). Transactions of the Society for British Entomology. 15(9): 167-275.
Hansson, C. 1985. Taxonomy and biology of the Palearctic species of Chrysocharis Förster, 1856 (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Entomologica Scandinavica supplement 26.
Hansson, C. 1987. Revision of the New World Chrysocharis Förster (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Entomologica Scandinavica supplement 31.
Hansson, C. 1990. A taxonomic study on the Palearctic species of Chrysonotomyia Ashmead and Neochrysocharis Kurdjumov (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Entomologica Scandinavica. 20: 29-52.
Hansson, C. 1995. Revised key to the Nearctic species of Chrysocharis Förster (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), including three new species. Journal of Hymenoptera Research. 4: 80-98.
Hansson, C. 1997. Survey of Chrysocharis Förster and Neochrysocharis Kurdjumov (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae) from Mexico, including eight new species. Miscellania Zoologica (Barcelona). 20(1): 81-95.
Schauff, M.E., J. LaSalle, & L.D. Coote. 1997. Chapter 10. Eulophidae. in "Annotated Keys to the Genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera)". G.A.P. Gibson & J.T. Huber, eds. NRC Research Press, Ottawa.
Image credits: 1b, 2a-b, 3a, 3c, 4b: Hansson (1985). 1a, 1c, 3b, 4a, 4c: Hansson (1987). 5a: Schauff et al. (1997). 6a: Hansson (1990). 6b: Graham (1963).