Chrysis.net Forum

Hi Milo,

yes, you're right,
it's a Pseudomalus.
Then the question is always the same, auratus or triangulifer?
This could be triangulifer, because in the first picture it seems that flagellomeres are elongate ...

Cheers

Thank you for your reaction Paolo. It's the same problem as always: they are to quick in flying and I was lucky enough to get some shots. So I'm happy with Pseudomalus, auratus or triangulifer.

Regards,
Hedy

Hello Hedy,

the images are too small to check diagnostic characters.
It's a Pseudomalus, auratus or triangulifer.

Cheers

Can this Chrysid be named..?
Found 3-7-2021 in Zeist, Holland

Thank you Paolo for the kind explanation and thank you Alex. I too lean to auratus, I have caught and identified triangulifer before and do think this specimen has different antennal segments matching with auratus.
Kind regards, Jochem.

Hi Jochem, thanks for your pictures. The distinction between Ps. auratus and Ps. triangulifer is not always easy and immediate, and needs experience. The easiest way to separate the two species is looking at the lenght of the antennal segments. If the median flagellomeres ...

Hi Miroslav,

Nice pictures. I think it is Pseudomalus triangulifer for the elongate flagellomeres.

Cheers
Paolo

Thank you very much Paolo !

Hi Frank,

I agree that this species should be Pseudomalus triangulifer.
In the second picture we can see the elongated flagellomeres of the antenna, this is the only reliable character for this species.

Cheers
Paolo

Thank you Paul, Villu Soon agreed about P. triangulifer because of the antennas "the only reliable character" ; I just can say that the size was really large, uncommon here for P. auratus (about 6mm long). But any other opinion is welcome !