Internet & Web

22 pages
7 views

A key to the neotropical genera of Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)

of 22
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
A key to the neotropical genera of Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)
Transcript
   Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Parag. Vol. 14 (1-2), Setiembre 2002, pp. 52 - 73 A KEY TO THE NEOTROPICAL GENERA OF EUMENINAE(HYMENOPTERA: VESPIDAE) J AMES M. C ARPENTER 1 and B OLÍVAR R. G ARCETE -B ARRETT 21 Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park Westat 79thStreet, New York, NY 10024, U. S. A. e-mail: carpente@amnh.org 2 Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay, Sucursal 1 Campus U.N.A., 2169 CDP,Central XI, San Lorenzo, PARAGUAY. e-mail: bolosphex@sce.cnc.una.py  Abstract  .- A key to the currently recognized genera of neotropical Eumeninae is presented. Distribution andnumber of neotropical species is given for each genus. A new synonym is  Eumenemorphus Gusenleitner, 1995, = Symmorphus Wesmael, 1836.  Resumen .- Se presenta una clave para los géneros neotropicales actualmente reconocidos de Eumeninae. Seda la distribución y el número de especies neotropicales para cada género. Un nuevo sinónimo es  Eumenemorphus Gusenleitner, 1995 = Symmorphus Wesmael, 1836. There has been no key to the genera of Eumeninae in the Neotropical Region publishedsince the revision by Zavattari (1912). Of course, the classification has changed dramati-cally during the intervening years: Zavattarirecognized 15 genera (one of which, Gayella , isactually a masarine), while presently 43 taxaare treated as genera, as well as one introducedgenus (  Delta , established in Jamaica). It is al-most needless to say that this proliferation of genera is merely the sort of extreme splittingthat Menke and Stange (1986) termed “irratio-nal,” which has been haphazardly pursued dur-ing much of the last century, and which has re-sulted in a worldwide generic classification of Eumeninae that Parker (1966) termed “chaotic.”Interestingly, the author of the last comprehen-sive monograph on neotropical Eumeninae,Zavattari himself, criticized the proliferation of genera espoused earlier by Ashmead andBrèthes, writing (Zavattari, 1912: 4): “Bezüglich der Gattungen hat Ashmeadfast alle von Saussure aufgestellenUntergattungen zur Gattung erhoben, aberschon nach einem flüchtigen Studiumerkennt man, daß es unmöglich ist, dieseGattungen getrennt zu halten, da immerzahreiche Übergangsformen gehörend.” which can be translated as: “Respecting the genera, Ashmead hasraised almost all subgenera installed bySaussure to genera, but already after a fleet-ing study one recognizes that it is impos-sible to hold these genera separated, sincenumerous transition-forms always occur.” Clearly, the situation with the generic clas-sification of neotropical Eumeninae will haveto be rationalized by synonymy of numeroustaxa. Two monotypic genera have been alreadysynonymized by the senior author of this pa-per (van der Vecht and Carpenter, 1990:  Araucodynerus synonymized with  Hypodynerus ; Carpenter and van der Vecht,1991: Tricomenes synonymized with Pirhosigma ), but further synonymy will not beundertaken on a large scale in the present work,as we prefer to do so in the context of cladisticanalysis. Instead, we present a key to pres-ently recognized genera - which will empha-size how questionable is the separation amongvarious taxa, and which will contribute to abasis for later synonymy. However, we willestablish one synonym here, because it is trivial,as detailed in the following.  Eumenemorphus was described byGusenleitner (1995) as monotypic for the new  53S ETIEMBRE 2002A KEY   TO   THE   NEOTROPICAL   GENERA   OF E UMENINAE species  Eumenemorphus   chiriquiensis Gusenleitner, 1995, from Panama. In his de-scription, Gusenleitner (1995: 153) comparedthe new genus to Symmorphus and  Eumenes ,stating that  Eumenemorphus was similar to Symmorphus in metasomal Tergum I beingcoarsely punctate and with a transverse carina,but that it was like  Eumenes in having this seg-ment petiolate. He also stated that  Eumenemorphus contrasted with Symmorphus in having no epicnemial carina, and having thepropodeum completely vertical, with only a flatconcavity and vertical mid-furrow.The comparison with Symmorphus is apt:in addition to the transverse carina on Tergum I,  Eumenemorphus also has a broad median lon-gitudinal furrow posterior to the carina (the se-nior author has seen specimens from Costa Rica,but fig. 3 in Gusenleitner (1995) clearly showsthis feature). Further, like Symmorphus , thefemale cephalic foveae are well separated, pos-terior to each lateral ocellus, and filled with se-tae. These two characters are two of the threedefining features of  Symmorphus listed byCumming (1989). The third feature, male an-tennae simple apically, cannot be checked yet;the male of   Eumenemorphus remains unknown.One may predict that its antennae will similarlybe simple apically.  Eumenemorphus differs from Symmorphus in just one respect, with metasomalsegment I petiolate. The other two features thatGusenleitner cites as differentiating Symmorphus are incorrect: presence of the epicnemial carinais variable in Symmorphus, as is presence of asuperior propodeal shelf and medial carina (seeCumming, 1989).Concerning the petiole, then, in  Eumenemorphus segment I differs from Symmorphus only by being petiolate basally:posterior to the transverse carina, the segmentis similar to species of  Symmorphus with a nar-row first segment. A petiolate metasoma hasnot only evolved on numerous occasions withinEumeninae, with various differences in form,numerous transitions occur as well (see Carpen-ter and Cumming, 1985). For this reason, deSaussure (1853: xxv) had already dismissed apetiole as a character of primary importance.Recognition of a genus based solely on such aninconsistent character is questionable in itself,moreover, whereas the petiole is derived rela-tive to species of  Symmorphus , that leaves thequestion as to how Symmorphus might be de-fined without including  Eumenemorphus - thatis, whether it is paraphyletic in terms of   Eumenemorphus . If   Eumenemorphus is in-cluded within Symmorphus , that is not a con-cern, and this course has the further advantagethat the combination of carina + median furrowand female cephalic foveae thus remain diag-nostic at the generic level. The choice, then, isclear, and we now establish the synonymy: Symmorphus Wesmael, 1836, =  Eumenemorphus Gusenleitner, 1995, NEWSYNONYMY.The senior author has elsewhere published akey to the genera of Mesoamerica (West-Eberhard et al. , 1995) and a key to the generaoccurring in Brazil (Carpenter and Marques,2001); the following key is modified comparedto both. For neotropical species identification,Giordani Soika (1975, 1978, 1990) providedkeys to species of the genera  Alphamenes, Brachymenes , Cyphomenes ,  Eumenes ,  Laevimenes ,  Minixi , Omicron , Pachymenes , Pararhaphidoglossa , Pirhosigma , Santamenes , Stenosigma and  Zeta , which are all  Eumenes inthe old sense. Other keys to species are avail-able for Cephalastor  (Garcete-Barrett, 2001aand 2002d), Ctenochilus (part; Giordani Soika,1964), Gamma (Cooper, 1999b),  Hypalastoroides (Giordani Soika, 1982),  Hypodynerus (part; Willink, 1970, 1978),  Incodynerus (Willink, 1969; see also Garcete-Barrett, 2002a),  Monobia and  Montezumia (Willink, 1982), Pachodynerus (Willink andRoig-Alsina, 1998), Parazumia (part; Ajmat andWillink, 1980), Pseudacaromenes (Garcete-Barrett, 2001b), Pseudodynerus (Bequaert,1941), Stenodynerus (Mesoamerican species;Bohart, 1980), Stenonartonia (part; GiordaniSoika, 1941; see also Garcete-Barrett, 2002b)  54B OL . M US . N AC . H IST . N AT . P ARAG .V OL . 14 (1-2) and  Zethus (Bohart and Stange, 1965; see alsoStange, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1997; Garcete-Barrett, 1998, 2002b, 2002c; Cooper, 1999a).The two species of  Cuyodynerus may be distin-guished using the description in Cooper (2001),and the two species of  Sphaeromenes may bedistinguished using the description in van derVecht (1980).  Antezumia (included species: chalybea (de Saussure)) and  Argentozethus (in-cluded species: willinki Stange) remain mono-typic, while a single species of   Delta has be-come established in Jamaica (see Menke andStange, 1986). Other genera remain unrevisedsince Zavattari (1912).K EY   TO   THE   NEOTROPICAL   GENERA The Neotropics is here construed tomean the continental land south of the Isth-mus of Tehuantepec plus the Caribbean is-lands, that is, the same area covered as inthe forthcoming book on Hymenoptera of the Neotropics. In the figures, all scale barsare 1 mm. 1. Anterior face of pronotum with two small,close set, deeply impressed medial pitsor foveae (Fig. 1), which may be con-tiguous (Fig. 2), or very faint in WestIndian species; tegula campanulate:abruptly expanded and broadly roundedposterolaterally (Fig. 3)........................2— Anterior face of pronotum without twoclose set, deeply impressed pits (Fig. 16),sometimes with faint, shallow impressions,rarely with one pit (species of   Ancistroceroides ); tegula variouslyshaped, usually more evenly convex (Figs.14-15, 45-46).........................................52. Propodeal valvula enlarged, free posteri-orly from submarginal carina, extendingas a somewhat rectangular lamella (Figs.10-11); vertex strongly sloping posteriorto ocelli (Fig. 5; more so in female);pronotum with anterior face coarsely punc-tate lateral to foveae; Tergum I with trans-verse carina at crest of anterior declivity(Figs. 4, 6); metanotum cristate, sometimesfaintly. Cephalastor Giordani Soika (Mexico to Paraguay: 12 species) — Propodeal valvula not free posteriorly, neverrectangular (Fig. 12); vertex usually notC LAVE   PARA   LOS   GÉNEROS   NEOTROPICALES La Región Neotropical, en el sentido deeste trabajo, comprende las tierrascontinentales al sur del Istmo de Tehuantepecmás las islas del Caribe, esto es, la mismaárea cubierta por el próximo libro sobre Hy-menoptera del Neotrópico. En las figurastodas las escalas corresponden a 1 mm. 1. Cara anterior del pronoto con un par de pequeñoshoyuelos o foveas medios profundamenteimpresos y cercanos entre sí (Fig. 1), que puedenser contíguos (Fig. 2) o, en algunas especiesantillanas, muy débiles; tégula campanulada:abruptamente expandida y ampliamenteredondeada postero-lateralmente (Fig. 3).......2— Cara anterior del pronoto sin un par dehoyuelos cercanos y profundamente impresos(Fig. 16), a veces con impresiones débiles,superficiales, raras veces con un hoyuelo cen-tral (algunos  Ancistroceroides ); tégula devariadas formas, usualmente más suavementeconvexa (Figs 14-15, 45-46)......................52. Válvula propodeal alongada, libre de la carenasubmarginal posteriormente, extendiéndose comouna lámina rectangular (Figs 10-11); vértice enmarcado declive por detrás de los ocelos (Fig. 5;más marcado aún en las hembras); pronoto conla cara anterior gruesamente punteada a amboslados de las foveas; Tergo I con una carena trans-versal en la cima de la declividad anterior (Figs.4-6); metanoto crestado transversalmente, a veceslevemente. Cephalastor Giordani Soika (México a Paraguay: 12 especies) — La válvula propodeal no está libre posteriormentey nunca es rectangular (Fig. 12); vértice  55S ETIEMBRE 2002A KEY   TO   THE   NEOTROPICAL   GENERA   OF E UMENINAE sloping; pronotum with or without puncta-tion; Tergum I with or without carina;metanotum rounded dorsally....................33. Pronotal foveae contiguous (Fig. 2); Ter-gum I with transverse carina (Figs. 4,6); pronotal carina projecting at humeri(Fig. 2); Sternum II truncate in profile(Fig. 4); male antennae with last articleobliquely truncate, often larger than pre-ceding article.  Hypancistrocerus de Saussure (Belize to Argentina: 14 species) — Pronotal foveae not contiguous (Fig. 1);Tergum I with or without transverse ca-rina; pronotal carina projecting or not;Sternum II truncate or not; male antennaewith last article smoothly tapering (Fig.59)........................................................44. Tergum II smooth basally, formingacarinarium beneath apex of first ter-gum that is often full of mites (oftenconcealed, tergum should be bent back-usualmente sin declive, pronoto con o sinpunteado; Tergo I con o sin carena transversal;metanoto dorsalmente convexo, sin cresta.........33. Foveas pronotales contíguas (Fig. 2); Tergo Icon carena transversal (Figs 4, 6); carenapronotal proyectándose en los ánguloshumerales (Fig. 2); Esterno II de perfil truncado(Fig. 4); último segmento de la antena del ma-cho oblicuamente truncado, a menudo mayorque el segmento precedente.  Hypancistrocerus de Saussure (Belice a Argentina: 14 especies) — Foveas pronotales no contíguas (Fig. 1);Tergo I con o sin carena transversal; carenapronotal proyectada o no; Esterno IItruncado o no; antena del macho con elúltimo segmento afinándose regularmentehacia el ápice (Fig. 59)............................44. Tergo II liso en la base, formando unacarinario por debajo del ápice del primertergo, que a menudo está lleno de ácaros (amenudo cerrado, el tergo debe doblarse hacia Figs. 1-5. 1) Parancistrocerus sp., head and pronotum in oblique dorsal view. 2)  Hypancistrocerus dentiformis (Fox), head and pronotum in frontal view. 3)  Hypancistrocerus dentiformis (Fox), tegula and parategula in dorsalview. 4)  Hypancistrocerus dentiformis (Fox), metasomal segments I and II in lateral view. 5) Cephalastor  sp.,head in lateral view. 12345  56B OL . M US . N AC . H IST . N AT . P ARAG .V OL . 14 (1-2) wards to expose acarinarium; Fig. 6).  Parancistrocerus Bequaert (some Asiatic species; U.S.A. to Argen-tina, Caribbean: 31 neotropical species) — Tergum II ridged basally, not formingacarinarium (Fig. 7). Stenodynerus de Saussure (mainly Holarctic; also Mexico to Argentina:38 neotropical species) 5. Forewing with second submarginal cell peti-olate anteriorly (Fig. 8).  Hypalastoroides de Saussure (U.S.A. to Argentina: 28 neotropical species) — Forewing with second submarginal cellsessile (Fig. 9)........................................66. Tergum I with transverse carina at crest of anterior declivity (Figs. 4, 6, 10, 12)..........7— Tergum I without carina (Figs. 7, 50)........117. Pronotum with complete oblique humeralcarina (Figs. 52, 57).  Pachodynerus de Saussure , part (West Indian species: P. atratus (Fabricius)and P. cinerascens (Fabricius)) atrás para exponer el acarinario; Fig. 6).  Parancistrocerus Bequaert (algunas especies asiáticas; Estados Unidos aArgentina, Antillas: 31 especies neotropicales) — Tergo II crenado basalmente, sin formaracarinario (Fig. 7).. Stenodynerus de Saussure (principalmente holártico; también Méxicoa Argentina: 38 especies neotropicales) 5. Ala anterior con la segunda celda submar-ginal peciolada anteriormente (Fig. 8).  Hypalastoroides de Saussure (Estados Unidos a Argentina: 28 especies neotropicales) — Segunda celda submarginal del ala anteriorsésil (Fig. 9)...........................................66. Tergo I con una carena transversal en la cimade la declividad anterior (Figs 4, 6, 10, 12).......7— Tergo I sin carena transversal (Figs 7, 50).....117. Pronoto con carena humeral oblicuacompleta (Figs 52, 57).  Pachodynerus de Saussure , en parte (especies antillanas: P. atratus (Fabricius)y P. cinerascens (Fabricius)) Figs. 6-9. 6) Parancistrocerus sp., metasoma in oblique lateral view. 7) Stenodynerus ochrogonius Bohart, metasomain oblique dorsal view. 8) Hypalastoroides melanosoma (de Saussure), forewing. 9)  Hypancistrocerus dentiformis (Fox), forewing. 6789
Related Documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x