Search

Two new species of Strepsiptera from the genus Zethus Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) are described. Although the stylopisation of the genus Zethus has been known for almost a century, we provide the first description of its strepsipteran parasites. Zethus brasiliensis fuscatus R. Bohart & Stange, 1965 is parasitised by Eupathocera zethi sp. nov. in the Neotropical Region (French Guiana) and Zethus favillaceus Walker, 1871 by Deltoxenos impressus sp. nov. in the Afrotropical Region (Kenya). An independent switch to the same host genus is supported by molecular and morphological data. Diagnoses and detailed descriptions of the species are provided based on characters of the female cephalothorax and male cephalotheca. Diagnostic characters are discussed.

A new species of Strepsiptera of the genus Paraxenos Saunders, 1872 (Xenidae) from the United Arab Emirates is described. It was recorded from the host species Bembix kohli Morice, 1897 and represents the first occurrence of Paraxenos from Bembix Fabricius, 1775 in the Afrotropical region. A detailed redescription of the female cephalothorax of Paraxenos hungaricus (Székessy, 1955) is provided, together with the first description of the male cephalotheca. The holotype of Paraxenos krombeini Kifune & Hirashima, 1987 was redescribed. Additionally, a key for parasites of Bembix among Paraxenos species is provided based on characters of the female cephalothorax and male cephalotheca. The distribution and conservation status of Paraxenos spp. on Bembix are also discussed.

Mimicry is usually understood to be an adaptive resemblance between phylogenetically distant groups of species. In this study, we focus on Batesian and Müllerian mimicry, which are often viewed as a continuum rather than distinct phenomena, forming so-called Batesian-Müllerian mimicry rings. Despite potent defence and wide environmental niche of hornets, little attention has been paid to them as potential models in mimicry research. We propose a Batesian-Müllerian mimicry ring of the Oriental hornet (Vespa orientalis, Hymenoptera: Vespidae) consisting of eight species that coexist in the Mediterranean region. To reveal general ecological patterns, we reviewed their geographical distribution, phenology, and natural history. In accordance with the ‘model-first’ theory, Batesian mimics of this ring occurred later during a season than the Müllerian mimics. In the case of Batesian mimic Volucella zonaria (Diptera: Syrphidae), we presume that temperature-driven range expansion could lead to allopatry with its model, and, potentially, less accurate resemblance to an alternative model, the European hornet (Vespa crabro: Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Colour morphs of polymorphic species Cryptocheilus alternatus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), Delta unguiculatum (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), Rhynchium oculatum (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), and Scolia erythrocephala (Hymenoptera: Scoliidae) appear to display distinct geographical distribution patterns, and this is possibly driven by sympatry with alternative models from the European hornet (Vespa crabro) complex. General coevolution patterns of models and mimics in heterogenous and temporally dynamic environments are discussed, based on observations of the proposed Oriental hornet mimicry ring.

The generic taxonomy and host specialization of Xenidae have been understood differently by previous authors. Although the recent generic classification has implied a specialization on the level of host families or subfamilies, the hypothesis that each xenid genus is specialized to a single host genus was also previously postulated. A critical evaluation of the classification of the genera of Xenidae is provided here based on morphology in accordance with results of recent molecular phylogenetic studies. External features of the female cephalothoraces and male cephalothecae were documented in detail with different techniques. Diagnoses and descriptions are presented for all 13 delimited genera. The earliest diverging genera are usually well characterized by unique features, whereas deeply nested genera are usually characterized by combinations of characters. Three new genera are described: Sphecixenos gen. nov., Tuberoxenos gen. nov., and Deltoxenos gen. nov. Five previously described genera are removed from synonymy: Tachytixenos Pierce, 1911, stat. res.; Brasixenos Kogan & Oliveira, 1966, stat. res.; Leionotoxenos Pierce, 1909, stat. res.; Eupathocera Pierce, 1908, stat. res.; and Macroxenos Schultze, 1925, stat. res. One former subgenus is elevated to generic rank: Nipponoxenos Kifune & Maeta, 1975, stat. res. Monobiaphila Pierce, 1909, syn. nov. and Montezumiaphila Brèthes, 1923, syn. nov. are recognized as junior synonyms of Leionotoxenos Pierce, 1909, stat. res. Ophthalmochlus Pierce, 1908, syn. nov., Homilops Pierce, 1908, syn. nov., Sceliphronechthrus Pierce, 1909, syn. nov., and Ophthalmochlus (Isodontiphila) Pierce, 1919, syn. nov. are recognized as junior synonyms of Eupathocera Pierce, 1908, stat. res. A preliminary checklist of 119 described species of Xenidae with information on their hosts and distribution is provided. The following 14 species are recognized as valid and restituted from synonymy: Tachytixenos indicus Pierce, 1911, stat. res.; Brasixenos acinctus Kogan & Oliveira, 1966, stat. res.; Brasixenos araujoi (Oliveira & Kogan, 1962), stat. res.; Brasixenos bahiensis Kogan & Oliveira, 1966, stat. res.; Brasixenos brasiliensis Kogan & Oliveira, 1966, stat. res.; Brasixenos fluminensis Kogan & Oliveria, 1966, stat. res.; Brasixenos myrapetrus Trois, 1988, stat. res.; Brasixenos zikani Kogan & Oliveira, 1966, stat. res.; Leionotoxenos hookeri Pierce, 1909, stat. res.; Leionotoxenos jonesi Pierce, 1909, stat. res.; Leionotoxenos louisianae Pierce, 1909, stat. res.; Eupathocera luctuosae Pierce, 1911, stat. res.; Eupathocera lugubris Pierce, 1909, stat. res.; Macroxenos piercei Schultze, 1925, stat. res. New generic combinations are proposed for 51 species: Leionotoxenos arvensidis (Pierce, 1911), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos bishoppi (Pierce, 1909), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos foraminati (Pierce, 1911), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos fundati (Pierce, 1911), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos huastecae (Székessy, 1965), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos itatiaiae (Trois, 1984), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos neomexicanus (Pierce, 1919), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos prolificum (Teson & Remes Lenicov, 1979), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos robertsoni (Pierce, 1911), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos tigridis (Pierce, 1911), comb. nov.; Leionotoxenos vigili (Brèthes, 1923), comb. nov.; Eupathocera argentina (Brèthes, 1923), comb. nov.; Eupathocera auripedis (Pierce, 1911), comb. nov.; Eupathocera bucki (Trois, 1984), comb. nov.; Eupathocera duryi (Pierce, 1909), comb. nov.; Eupathocera erynnidis (Pierce, 1911), comb. nov.; Eupathocera fasciati (Pierce, 1909), comb. nov.; Eupathocera fuliginosi (Brèthes, 1923), comb. nov.; Eupathocera inclusa (Oliveira & Kogan, 1963), comb. nov.; Eupathocera insularis (Kifune, 1983), comb. nov.; Eupathocera mendozae (Brèthes, 1923), comb. nov.; Eupathocera piercei (Brèthes, 1923), comb. nov.; Eupathocera striati (Brèthes, 1923), comb. nov.; Eupathocera taschenbergi (Brèthes, 1923), comb. nov.; Eupathocera westwoodii (Templeton, 1841), comb. nov.; Macroxenos papuanus (Székessy, 1956), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos abbotti (Pierce, 1909), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos astrolabensis (Székessy, 1956), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos dorae (Luna de Carvalho, 1956), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos erimae (Székessy, 1956), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos esakii (Hirashima & Kifune, 1962), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos gigas (Pasteels, 1950), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos kurosawai (Kifune, 1984), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos laetum (Ogloblin, 1926), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos orientalis (Kifune, 1985), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos reticulatus (Luna de Carvalho, 1972), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos simplex (Székessy, 1956), comb. nov.; Sphecixenos vanderiisti (Pasteels, 1952), comb. nov.; Tuberoxenos altozambeziensis (Luna de Carvalho, 1959), comb. nov.; Tuberoxenos sinuatus (Pasteels, 1956), comb. nov.; Tuberoxenos sphecidarum (Siebold, 1839), comb. nov.; Tuberoxenos teres (Pasteels, 1950), comb. nov.; Tuberoxenos tibetanus (Yang, 1981), comb. nov.; Deltoxenos bequaerti (Luna de Carvalho, 1956), comb. nov.; Deltoxenos bidentatus (Pasteels, 1950), comb. nov.; Deltoxenos hirokoae (Kifune & Yamane, 1992), comb. nov.; Deltoxenos iwatai (Esaki, 1931), comb. nov.; Deltoxenos lusitanicus (Luna de Carvalho, 1960), comb. nov.; Deltoxenos minor (Kifune & Maeta, 1978), comb. nov.; Deltoxenos rueppelli (Kinzelbach, 1971a), comb. nov.; Xenos ropalidiae (Kinzelbach, 1975), comb. nov. Xenos minor Kinzelbach, 1971a, syn. nov. is recognized as a junior synonym of X. vesparum Rossi, 1793. Ophthalmochlus duryi Pierce, 1908, nomen nudum and Eupathocera lugubris Pierce, 1908, nomen nudum are recognized as nomina nuda and therefore unavailable in zoological nomenclature. The species diversity of Xenidae probably remains poorly known: the expected number of species is at least twice as high as the number presently described.

RESUMO: A Lidocaína é um medicamento anestésico eficaz na supressão da tosse durante a Broncofibroscopia.Trabalhos recentes sugerira que a Lidocaína endovenosa é mais eficaz do que a Lidocaína local na prevenção do broncoespasmo e da tosse durante a Broncofibroscopia.Neste estudo, os autores decidiram comparar a eficácia da lidocaína aplicada localmente e administrada endovenosamente na supressão da tosse durante a broncofibroscopia electiva.Os autores estudaram 64 doentes que foram submetidos a broncofibroscopia, tendo sido randomizados em três grupos, os que realizaram apenas Lidocaína-Spray, os que fizeram Lidocaína endovenosa e os que fizeram Lidocaína em aerossol. Todos os doentes foram submetidos a sedação com Midazolan.A tosse foi avaliada qualitativamente e quantitativamente durante a broncofibroscopia por um observador independente.A administração adicional de sedação e Lidocaína foi registada.Os registos da tosse para os três grupos â Lidocaína â Spray, Lidocaína endovenosa e Lidocaína em aerossol são respectivamente 71,9, 73,4 e 83,4 pontos (n=0,87) os doentes que fizeram aerossol de Lidocaína necessitaram de mais sedação e de Lidocaína local endobrônquica.Não se verificam vantagens reais nos diversos grupos, particularmente em relação à supressão da tosse durante Broncofibroscopia. COMENTÃRIO: Analisando os resultados do trabalho, pensamos que a tolerância à broncofibroscopia utilizando a metodologia habitual com lidocaína local é excelente, não havendo complicações major na maioria dos casos.O eventual benefício que os autores esperavam, utilizando lidocaína endovenosa, não foi encontrado, particularmente na supressão da tosse e no eventual broncoespasmo desencadeado pela lidocaína em spray e pelo aerossol de lidocaína.Perante a análise dos métodos e dos resultados, pensamos não haver indicação para lidocaína e. v. nesta situação e que devemos continuar a realizar as broncofibroscopias com aplicação tópica de lidocaína endobrônquica. Palavras-chave: Broncofibroscopia, Lidocaína