Macrocentrinae Foerster 1863

Key to Oriental genera of Macrocentrinae (based on females) 1 Laterope absent, exceptionally shallowly impressed in glymma, but not distinctly differentiated (Figs 1A, B); first metasomal tergite flat or convex medio-basally (Fig. 1C); [marginal cell of hind wing more or less widened apically (Fig. 1E); vein SR of hind wing sinuate (Fig. 1D) or straight (Fig. 1 Ea); vein 1-CU1 of fore wing slender]................................ 2 - Laterope deep and large, distinctly differentiated from glymma (Figs 1F, G); first tergite nearly always slightly concave medio-basally (Fig. 1H)..................................................................................... 3 2 Vein 2-SR+M of fore wing longer than vein m-cu (Fig. 1 Ia); vein SR of hind wing straight and unsclerotized subbasally; marginal cell of hind wing directly strongly widened apically (Figs 1E, 1 Ib).................... Leptozele Cameron, 1910 - Vein 2-SR+M of fore wing shorter than vein m-cu (Fig. 1 Ja); vein SR of hind wing distinctly curved and sclerotized subbasally; marginal cell of hind wing moderately widened to subparallel-sided apically (Fig. 1 Jb)........ Aulacocentrum Brues, 1922 3 Vein R1 of hind wing distinctly widened and short (see Fig. 22 in van Achterberg 1993); vein 3-M of fore wing more directed posteriad and shorter than twice vein 3-SR; [marginal cell of hind wing hardly or not constricted subbasally]........................................................................................ Rectizele van Achterberg, 1993 - Vein R1 of hind wing (= part of vein with hamuli) slender and medium-sized (Fig. 1 Eb, Figs 2 Dc, Fb); vein 3-M of fore wing normal, less directed posteriad and at least twice as long as vein 3-SR (Figs 2A, B)................................. 4 4 Inner hind spur 0.5–0.8 × longer than hind basitarsus (Fig. 15 in van Achterberg 1993); length of ovipositor sheath 0.1–0.6 × (or –0.9×) fore wing; fore tibial spur 0.2–0.4 × as long as fore basitarsus; vein SR of hind wing more or less sinuate, resulting in a more or less constricted marginal cell of hind wing; inner hind claw of ♀ frequently different from outer hind claw.... 5 - Inner hind spur 0.3–0.5 × as long as hind basitarsus, if 0.5 × then ovipositor sheath longer than fore wing, or fore tibial spur 0.5–0.6 × as long as fore basitarsus; vein SR of hind wing usually straight or slightly sinuate (Figs 2 Db, Fa), resulting in a hardly constricted marginal cell of hind wing (Figs 1D, Fig. 2 Fa, see Fig. 12 in van Achterberg 1993); inner and outer hind claw of ♀ similar.......................................................................................... 6 5 Vein cu-a of fore wing strongly widened basally (Fig. 2 Cb); vein M+CU1 of fore wing distinctly angled (Fig. 2 Ca); subbasal cell of fore wing strongly widened apically (Fig. 2C).................. Neurogoniella van Achterberg & Long, gen. nov. - Vein cu-a of fore wing slender basally (see Fig. 12 in van Achterberg 1993); vein M+CU1 of fore wing at most moderately curved (but stronger in a few extralimital (Australian) species).............................. Austrozele Roman, 1910 6 First tergite largely longitudinally sculptured or smooth (Fig. 2 Da), if evenly transversely sculptured, then vein SC+R1 of hind wing straight or weakly curved (Fig. 2 Db); vein SR of hind wing at most moderately curved subbasally (Fig. 2 Db)....................................................................................... Macrocentrus Curtis, 1833 - First tergite largely transversely sculptured (Fig. 2E) and vein SC+R1 of hind wing (rather) abruptly bent; vein SR of hind wing strongly curved subbasally (Fig. 2 Fa)............................................... Aulacocentrum Brues, 1922