Entedonomphale postmarginalis Shafee, Rizvi & Khan 1988, comb. n.

Entedonomphale postmarginalis (Shafee, Rizvi & Khan, 1988), comb. n.

(Figs 5, 6)

Euderomphale postmarginalis Shafee, Rizvi & Khan 1988: 2 (description, key [as E. Postmarginalis]), 3 (illustrations, figs D and E [as E. Postmarginalis]). Type locality: Bullandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Entedonastichus postmarginalis (Shafee, Rizvi & Khan): Hayat et al. 2005: 10 (type information).

Type material examined. Holotype female [ZDAMU] dissected on two slides, as follows. Slide 1 (head, one antenna, mesosoma and most of metasoma, and legs (with some segments missing) [under two coverslips]), labeled: 1. “Ref. No. 723 sp. n.”, 2. “ HOLOTYPE Euderomphale postmarginalis Shafee, Rizvi & Khan det. M. Hayat, 2003”; Slide 2 (one antenna, one forewing, and the ovipositor [under the same coverslip]), labeled: 1. “723 [in pencil] Ref. No 723 sp. n.”, 2. “ HOLOTYPE parts Euderomphale postmarginalis Shafee, Rizvi & Khan det. M. Hayat, 2003”.

Diagnosis. Body and appendages mostly dark brown. Toruli slightly below lover ocular line. Antenna (Fig. 5) with scape (not counting a small radicle) 4.1 x as long as wide, a little dilated basally and medially. Pedicel longer than funicle; F1 a little smaller than F2, 1.1-1.5 x as wide as long, apparently without longitudinal sensilla; F2 1.6 x as wide as long, at least with 1 longitudinal sensillum; clava entire, 1.6-1.7 x as long as wide. Mesosoma shorter than metasoma. Midlobe of mesoscutum with 1 pair of setae; anterior margin of scutellum slightly angulate. Forewing (Fig. 6) about 3.1 x as long as wide, with disc almost hyaline (with a slight brownish tinge throughout, perhaps a little more pronounced behind marginal and stigmal veins) and setose behind marginal and stigmal veins and beyond venation (more sparsely so behind base of marginal vein, and bare posterior of cubital row of setae); stigmal vein about as long as postmarginal vein; the longest marginal seta about 1/2 of maximal forewing width. Petiole longer than wide.

Entedonomphale postmarginalis is undoubtedly a good species. In Triapitsyn (2005), E. postmarginalis would key to the couplets together with the species that have a hyaline forewing (i.e., E. boccaccioi S. Triapitsyn from the USA, E. bicolorata (Ishii) from Japan, Germany, and Ukraine, and E. esenini S. Triapitsyn from Madagascar). Entedonomphale postmarginalis differs from all of them by the female antenna, both funicle segments of which are wider than long (Fig. 5).

Comments. This species was described (and is still known) from a single female holotype “ex aleyrodid on Citrus sp.” (Shafee et al. 1988). The host record seems doubtful and thus needs verification.