---

Well, I am probably in the wrong genus but if it is Estheria than it should be E. nigripes since I reached to this species after following the key provided by Ceretti et al., 2012:
http://www.naturkundemuseum-bw.de/sites/default/files/forschung/user_129/ans05-13cerretti.pdf

Does also E. nigripes have a triangular shaped black pattern on the anterior lobe of the pronotum?

Istanbul, Turkey

---

I agree it might very well be Estheria. I do not understand how you can be so sure it keys out to nigripes, since the crucial feature (hairs on parafacial) are not visible from this angle.


Theo

---

The photo is very big. If you zoom in to the parafacial area, you will see tha black hairs. So the parafacial area is not bare.

---

I see what you mean, but that is insufficient. E. cristata, for instance, has similar hairs. But these do not descend on parafacial.

Now, this is not cristata, and I am not saying it is not nigripes, but I cannot confirm it. I have only the male of this species, which has much more hairs on parafacial.


Theo

---

I just realized that the postpronotal area was white which makes it E. picta. The reddish colour of the abdominal segment in the first photo also confirms the new ID. Do you agree?

---

No. the ground colour of postprontum is dark. The greyish dusting does not count. In decolor and oicta, it is yellow, not white.
Moreover, the antenna is dark.
Finally the topcell is open, whereas it is short petiolatedmin picta and petiolata, at least in Europe.
So, this one does need key out.
Might be an aberration, might be a new species.
Only collecting material might resolve the matter..

Theo

---

Ok, I will try to collect a specimen when I meet it again.