STUDIES ON NEOTROPICAL POMPILIDAE ( HYMENOPTERA ) . IX

The posthumous paper of Hermann Haupt on the classification of the Macromerinae (Haupt, I959) is an unworthy memorial to its author and an unfortunate step backward in the systematics of spider wasps. Working from very little material and a lack o.f awareness of research in other parts of the world, Haupt erected :2 new genera, few if any of which are likely to, stand the test of time. Two of them actually belong in the subfamily Pompilinae, as synonyms of Priochil.us Banks (Evans, 966), while others will fall in the Pepsinae in most classifications (Compsagenia, Anapriocnemis). His inclusion o.f such diverse elements in the Macromerinae suggests the difficulty in defining the group, which I would rank as a rather weakly characteriz.ed tribe of Pepsinae ,and call the Auptopodini, after the first genus to be used in a suprageneric sense, Pseudagenia, now properly called Auplopus. I am not in a position to ,straighten out all the confusion caused by Haupt’s paper, but I wish to consider seven genera which he described from the neotropics, all of which can be promptly relegated to synonymy. T.here are, howeve,r, several remarkable new genera and subgenera o.f this tribe in South America, which both Haupt and Banks (946) were unaware of, and I shall use this opportunity to describe these taxa and to present a revised key to neotropical Auplopodini.

time.Two of them actually belong in the subfamily Pompilinae, as synonyms of Priochilus Banks (Evans, 1966), while others will fall in the Pepsinae in most classifications ( Compsagenia , Anapriocnemis) .
H is inclusion of such diverse elements in the Macromerinae suggests the difficulty in defining the group, which I would rank as a rather weakly characterized tribe of Pepsinae and call the Auplopodini, after the first genus to be used in a suprageneric sense, Pseudagcnia , now properly called Auplopus.I am not in a position to straighten out all the confusion caused by Haupt's paper, but I wish to consider seven genera which he described from the neotropics, all of which can be promptly relegated to synonymy.There are, however, several remarkable new genera and subgenera of this tribe in South America, wdiich both Haupt and Banks (1946) were unaware of, and I shall use this opportunity to describe these taxa and to present a revised key to neotropical Auplopodini.I am much indebted to Professor J. O. Hiising, of the Zoologisches Institut, Halle, for permitting me to borrow some of the specimens that Haupt studied, including several types.
^Published with the aid of a grant from the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Manuscript received by the editor > June 7 1 1973 .
I have not seen the type of rusticus, but the specimens that Haupt had before him agree perfectly with the type of Priophanes insolens Banks, 1946 , and they are from the same locality.This is a wellmarked and evidently common species, and these specimens agree well with Fabricius' description.I therefore do not hesitate to consider insolens Banks a synonym of rustica Fabricius (new synonymy).Townes ( 1957 ) places insolens in Ageniella , subgenus Ameragenia , an assignment with which I concur; thus P seudageniella Haupt falls as a synonym of Ameragenia Banks, 1945 (new synonymy).In his key, Haupt states that this genus is from the Nearctic region, an obvious error, since he states on p. 46 that his material is from Brazil.
Haupt separated this genus from the preceding on exceedingly minor characters, and in fact his obsoleta and his specimens of rustica differ primarily in size and coloration.I have compared the type specimen of obsoleta Haupt with that of Priophanes plagosa Banks, 1946, and found them to be conspecific; again, both are from the same locality.Townes ( 1957 ) also places plagosa in Ageniella, subgenus Ameragenia.Thus Allageniella is to be regarded as a synonym of Ameragenia Banks, obsoleta a synonym of plagosa Banks (new synonymies).
By comparison of type specimens, B. nigra is to be regarded as a synonym of Ameragenia thione Banks, 1946
I have studied Haupt's material of amabilis and found it conspecific with Ageniella amoena Banks, 1946.Since Haupt presumably had access to Taschenberg's types, it seems safe to place amoena in the synonymy of amabilis (new synonymy).This species is properly placed in the genus Priocnemella Banks, 1925, and Cosmagenia can thus be relegated to the synonymy of that genus (new synonymy) .
Study of the type specimen of laevipes shows it to be conspecific with the type of Nannochilus ' obscurus Banks, 1946 (new synonymy).Townes (1957)   Description.-Length 8.4 mm; fore wing 7.4 mm.Head light rufous, with a pair of black spots on upper front ; front and temples with a reticulate pattern of white; malar space, mandibles, and lab rum mostly white; thoracic dorsum mainly light rufous, sides with broad streaks of light rufous and white, also some black on posterior parts of mesopleura and metapleura ; propodeum white, with a pair of broad, longitudinal black bands ; abdomen mainly whitish or somewhat cream in color, tergite 1 with a small amount of black laterobasally and medioapically, tergites 2-5 with much black basally, tergite 6 mostly pale; venter mostly pale, but all pale markings of abdomen irregularly tinged with brown ; antennae stramineous and partially infuscated on basal 0.3, again at basal vein, this band connected through the first submarginal cell with another band partially crossing the wing at the second submarginal ; hind wings hyaline.
Body with pale, inconspicuous pubescence; erect setae absent except on clypeus, mouthparts, venter and apex of abdomen.
Clypeus 3 X as wide as high, its apical margin sinuate, with a broadly rounded median lobe; front broad, middle interocular distance .60X head width ; upper interocular distance .70X lower interocular distance; vertex very weakly arched between eye tops, subcarinate behind ocelli; postocellar line: ocello-ocular line = 4:5; antennae very slender, third segment 6.6 X as long as its apical width, 1.2 X upper interocular distance (Fig. 1 blotched with fuscous across much of pronotal disc, center of mesoscutum, base and apex of scutellum, along pleural sutures, and over most of venter; abdomen rufotestaceous, blotched with fuscous on sides of tergites 1-4, tergites 2 and 3 also with small lateral white spots; scape mostly white, flagellum brown, darkened toward apex; legs mostly rufotestaceous, coxae blotched with fuscous, apices of femora and most of tibiae blotched with fuscous and annulated with white.Wings hyaline except hind wing with a preapical brown band, apex clear; fore wing brownish at base, across basal and transverse median veins, and in a broad band below stigma, the last band extended along radial vein.Pubescence delicate, inconspicuous; clypeus with several white setae in addition to the tufts on the mandibles, ocellar area also with several strong, curved, white setae; scutellum and apex and venter of abdomen with sparse, weaker setae. Clypeus 2.4 X as wide as high, apical margin weakly convex; head subcircular in anterior view; middle interocular distance .60X head width ; upper interocular distance .68X lower interocular dis-tance; vertex strongly elevated above eye tops, especially at ocellar triangle; postocellar line: ocello-ocular line -2:1; third antennal segment 7.5 X as long as its apical width, 1.1 X upper interocular distance (Fig. 3).Pronotum short, disc sloping and with no flat dorsal surface; postnotum transverse, not projecting backward medially.Wing venation similar to that of variegata but stigma unusually wide, third submarginal cell smaller, only 1.5 X as wide as high, removed from wingtip by twice its own width.
Generic characters.-With the general features of the Auplopodini, including the wing venation (shown in Fig. 4) and the form of the first abdominal segment; length 7-10 mm; wings unbanded, lightly tinged with brown.Female: maxillary palpi of moderate length ; mentum with a number of strong setae arising near base and directed forward, much as in Auplopus ; mandibles slender, with scattered, strong bristles (Fig. 5) ; labrum wholly concealed; clypeus not extending under lower margins of eyes; malar space about one third as long as width of mandibles at their base; temples well developed, not strongly receding, nearly as wide as eyes; vertex extended well above eye tops ; ocellar triangle located well before vertex crest; propodeum with smooth contours, slope low and even; legs relatively smooth, but middle and hind tibiae bearing numerous spines of moderate length ; claws dentate, tooth arising rather close to outer ray; apical tergite with a flat pygidial area which is devoid of setae but is minutely punctate and shagreened.Male (Fig. 10) : head remarkably enlarged, much wider than thorax, vertex far above eye tops and ocelli, temples much wider than eyes; malar space about half as long as width of mandibles at their base; antennae elongate, capable of reaching middle of abdomen; tarsal claws and spines of tibiae as in female; first abdominal segment much expanded from the base, but with no evidence of a lateral seam.Subgenital plate tongueshaped, midline only weakly elevated (Fig. 8) ; genitalia with the basal hooklets absent, parameres elongate, digiti broad and abruptly truncate apically (Fig. 9).
Remarks.-This genus is most closely related to Auplopus, differing in the less strongly petiolate abdomen (especially in the male), the less well defined pygidial area, presence of a short malar space, broad clypeus with a slightly concave apical margin, and several other features.The male genitalia differ in no important details from those of Auplopus.only slightly less than that of head ; features of pronotum and postnotum as described for male ; wing venation as in Fig. 4 ; legs and abdomen as described under generic heading.
Variation.-Both paratypes are slightly smaller than the allotype (fore wing 7.3, 7.5 mm) but there are no differences worthy of note.
Remarks.-Despite the great difference in head structure in the two sexes, there is close agreement in all other essential features, and there can be no question that these are male and female of one species.This is the only case known to me in the Pompilidae in which sexual dimorphism involves a major difference in head size.
In this connection the following notes provided by Martin G.

Psyche [September
Naumann may be of interest (his nest no.2048; see type designation for locality).
This was a nest of Stelopolybia sp., a social vespid that typically nests in cavities.In this case the nest occupied several cavities inside a large carton ant nest ( Azteca sp.) attached to a tree trunk, 2 m above the ground.On May 7, a wasp was seen walking about on the surface of the ant nest.It was captured and proved to be a male pompilid (the type of this species).On June 21 both wasp and ant nest were heavily damaged by children, but on July 3 both wasps and ants were still active, and the nest was harvested by chloroforming it and catching the contents in a sac.The three female pompilids were found among the vespids, the ants, and the rubble.
Structure of the females suggests strongly that they build mud cells: this is the usual function of stiff bristles on the labium and a smooth pygidial plate.In this instance it seems probable that they were utilizing a part of one of the cavities inside the ant nest and being tolerated by the ants and the vespids.I suggest that the large head of the male may enable it to pass as a worker Azteca ant.
These ants are polymorphic, and the larger workers commonly are macrocephalic.
In this instance the workers were considerably smaller than the male Dimorphagenia , but they were of a similar pale color and the larger workers decidedly macrocephalic.Presumably macrocephaly does not occur in the female sex because it would render them unable to perform their usual hunting and nest-building activities.Macrocephaly in the male suggests that the male is more than a passive inhabitant of the nest; perhaps the presence of several such males inhibits attacks by ants and social wasps.One can only hope that the relationships of these insects can some day be worked out in detail.
Subgeneric characters.-Females with the general features of Ageniella s. str.except as follows (males unknown).Mandibles unusually broad, with a small tooth located close to the apex (Fig. 6) ; clypeus with rather sharp anterolateral corners and with a median, apical angulation; front, in lateral view, either abruptly subangulate a short distance above the antennal sockets, then flat to the vertex crest, or flattened all the way from the antennal sockets to the vertex (Fig. 7), in either case with a median prominence just above the sockets.Pronotum short, with a somewhat flattened dorsal part; propodeum with smooth contours, without erect setae or with a very few setae on each side; legs relatively smooth, but middle and hind tibiae with several rows of very small spines; brush on inner side of hind tibia continuous to apex.Third submarginal cell receiving second recurrent vein .4 the distance from the base; anal vein of hind wing reaching media well before cubital fork.Known species with the wings unbanded, the antennae dark but with a white annulus near the middle.
Remarks .--Arnold {1934) described a genus from Africa in which the female has the front more or less angulate in profile, Arpactomorpha.However, in this genus the angulate portion has a median groove, and below the angulation there is an oblique impression on each side of the face.Furthermore, in Arpactomorpha the mentum has a beard composed of four or five long bristles arising from the base, whereas in Cyrtagenia there are only a few weak setae arising along the length of the mentum, as usual in A geniella.
I doubt if there is any close relationship between these two groups.
Key to species ( Females ) Angulation of front well above antennal sockets; some of the abdominal tergites with lateral white spots; pubescence fine and relatively inconspicuous fallax (Arle) Front forming a nearly flat, oblique slope from the antennal sockets to the vertex (Fig. 7) ; abdomen without white spots; pubescence unusually coarse and hoary innuba, new species A geniella (Cyrtagenia) fallax (Arle) new combination Amerag enia fallax Arle 1947, pp. 426-428, figs. 23-25.Aide's description and figures are excellent, and there seems no need to redescribe the species at this time.Arle had a single female, from near Rio de Janeiro.The species appears to be widely distributed, as I have seen females from Teresopolis and Nova Teutonia, Brazil; Oran and Tucuman, Argentina; and Avispas, near Marcapata, Peru.These females are exceedingly variable in color.
All have a pale annulation on the antennae and at least small spots on the sides of the abdomen, but the other maculations described by Arle may be much reduced or even absent.At the other extreme, the specimen from Peru is exceedingly ornate, having ivory spots over much of the head and thorax, as well as a median stripe on the Variation.-Both paratypes have a small white spot on each posterior pronotal lobe.The abdomen of the Teresopolis specimen is dusky ferruginous, the legs darker than in the type.The topotypic paratype is slightly smaller than the type (fore wing 8 mm) and has a white spot on the third antennal segment as well as a large one on the scape.
Key to Neotropical genera of Auplopodini ( Females ) (Modified from Banks, 1946, andTownes, 1957) 1. Apex of front tibia on outer side with a. strongly differentiated, curved, hooklike spine; clypeus large, extending well beneath bottoms of eyes 2 Apex of front tibia without a strong, curved spine that is well
segment of middle and hind tarsi spined beneath ; lower part of mesopleurum with a projection; clypeus strongly emarginate Phanochilus BanksLast segment of all tarsi smooth beneath ; mesopleurum without with a basal tuft of long, pale setae which cover much of the mandibles; malar space at least half as long as width of mandibles at their base (Figs.1, 3)Mystacagenia , new genusMandibles without such modification, simple and with scattered setae; malar space less than half as long as width of tergite covered with bristles and without a differentiated pygidial area; mentum with or without a few thin setae scata median area which is devoid of setae and more or less smooth, often polished ; mentum with a group of stout setae arising near the base and directed forward 5 5. Malar space about one third as long as width of mandibles at their base; temples prominent, nearly as wide as eyes; tooth of claws quite close to outer ray (males macrocephalic, Fig.10) D Psyche[September propodeum and lateral stripes on the first tergite.It is possible that more than one species is involved, but on the basis of presently available material I am inclined to think not.
im orp hagenia, new genus Malar space small or absent, mandibles and lower eye margins