n6 z. bouCek 



Material examined. 



Type data given in synonymy. 



Egypt: Tura nr Cairo, v., i $ (E. Chakour) (MCSN, Genoa); El Roda, xi., i $ 

 (Alfieri) (MCSN, Genoa); El Faiyum, Lake Karun, ix. 1945, 2 $ (R. L. Coe) (BMNH); 

 Djebel Asfar, 5.V1.1930, 1 $ {A. Mochi) (MCSN, Genoa). Sudan: Kosti, 1 $ (MCZ, 

 Cambridge). Pakistan: Karachi, 6 $ (T. R. Bell) (BMNH). 



Leucospis ornata Westwood 

 (Text-figs 10, 11, 137) 



Leucospis ornata Westwood, 1839 : 252, $. LECTOTYPE $ (here designated), South Africa: 



Cape Province (MNHU, Berlin) [examined]. 

 Leucospis tricarinata Schletterer, 1890 : 221-223, $. Holotype $, 'Congo, Cap Van Gele' 



(IRSNB, Brussels) [examined]. Sya. n. 



L. ornata. The original material consists of two females labelled in identical 

 ways but belonging to two different species. As the description fits partly one, 

 partly the other, I selected as lectotype the female agreeing with Schletterer's 

 interpretation and redescription (1890 : 219-221). The paralectotype belongs to 

 the closely related L. carinifera Kriechbaumer. 



L. tricarinata. I could not locate the type locality; the label may mean simply 

 north-west Zaire, explored by Captain Van Gele (!). Schletterer put tricarinata 

 in his key (1890 : 164-166) separately from ornata mainly on the allegedly different 

 length of the ovipositor. The holotype of tricarinata has, however, the gaster in 

 an abnormal position, with the part beyond the first tergite drooping, slightly 

 approaching the position of the segments during oviposition. This accounts for 

 the tip of the ovipositor (sheaths broken off in holotype) reaching only the apex of 

 the first tergite. The gaster is said to be broader than in ornata but that certainly 

 is within the variation. 



Otherwise I find the range of variation of L. ornata rather wide and it seems to 

 reflect not only the vast area of distribution, with rather varied conditions and 

 at least several different hosts. The variation affects not only colour, but also 

 various morphological characters, including length of pubescence, its density, 

 puncturation and its density, to some extent also the shape of the body and the 

 relative length of the ovipositor. 



Apart from the pattern of the yellow markings, in which L. ornata shows great 

 similarity to the akin L. varicollis and, to some extent also to L. carinifera, the 

 general colour mostly is piceous with some parts red, usually including partly on 

 face, all sides and median line on pronotum, sides and middle line on mesoscutum, 

 sides of propodeum with metapleura, more or less the legs, often also parts of the 

 gaster. Rufinistic specimens may be very extensively red. On the other hand 

 the specimens from Hester Malan, together with L. varicollis from the same locality, 

 are melanistic, black, with red greatly reduced. 



The morphological variation is so puzzling that for some time I regarded at least 

 one form as a different species and hesitated whether L. tricarinata was not, after 



