by Euchroeus » 15 Nov 2014 13:37
Hi Alex,
you're right.
The colour of the N African and Iberian Chrysidids is different.
You can find this observation on Linsenmaier and Kimsey & Bohart too.
In Kimsey & Bohart (1991: 39) is specified: "A very different situation occurs in the Palaearctic Region, particularly in Europe" [...] "Species in Southern Spain, North Africa, and the Middle East tend to be more completely brassy or coppery".
This is true, but I would extend this observation to all the specimens in the Palaearctic region. For example, in Italy or Greece we have only few species entirely green or blue, and the same in S Palaearctic (e.g. Iran to Pakistan), in central Asia (Turkmenistan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan, etc.) while in the Russian Far East and Japan you can see almost the same colouration as in central and North Europe.
More in general, in forests and in tropical countries in the Oriental, Neotropical and Afrotropical Region (excluding S Africa and Madagascar) the dominant colour is blue, with very few exceptions of species living in deserts or particular habitats. In arid, xerothermic and dry places you will find red, golden, greenish-coppery, brassy colourations. Of course there's a close connection between the body colour and the habitat. This is true expecially in the Palaearctic, and partially in the Afrotropical Region (e.g. along the Nile and Southern Africa) and Oriental Region (e.g. India), where some unusual colour can be found (red head and rest of the body blue or violet).
Perhaps there's also a connection with the evolution of this family. If the Chrysidids evolved in the early Tertiary in the Palaearctic Region [Holarctic?], in the last colonized areas we have only or mainly blue species (Australian Region, Neotropical Region, even in deserts ... see the Chilean species).
Maybe we can open a new discussion on this topic.