Redescription of Neanoplius Banks (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae) Author Pitts, James P. Author Sadler, Emily A. text Zootaxa 2019 2019-03-21 4568 3 571 580 journal article 28127 10.11646/zootaxa.4568.3.10 5de49805-1833-4379-a79b-e9ca57cb94a9 1175-5326 2601564 4D63FCC7-0AF1-4627-A809-DF4C6CBC2CC3 Neanoplius coeruleosomus Banks, 1947 Neanoplius coeruleosomus Banks, 1947 , Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 99: 421-422 [ Holotype : ♀ , Brazil , Santa Catarina , Nova Teutônia, 23.Feb.1939 , Plaumann (MCZC type no. 26237)]. Redescription of Neanoplius coeruleosomus Banks. Description of Holotype Female. Length 15.5 mm , fore wing length 12 mm . Coloration. Body black, except for small short yellow band on the posterior margin of eye, clothed with metallic blue appressed setae ( Fig. 1a ); wings pale brown, plainly darker over basal and transverse veins, darker band beyond cells, veins black ( Fig. 1c ); spurs black ( Fig. 1a ). Head . Head very wide ( Fig. 1b ); TFD 1.25 × FD; MID 0.72× FD. Front and vertex with rather long setae throughout. Ocelli in slightly acute triangle; lateral ocelli closer to each other than to compound eyes; POL 0.80 × OOL. Mandible wide, with two sharpened apical teeth, basal tooth longer. Malar space very short. Clypeus with anterior margin truncate, without slight broad emargination ( Fig. 1b ); LC 0.35 × WC; clypeal truncate lacking projection medially; dorsal surface slightly convex laterally; anterior margin nitid; setose throughout. Maxillary beard absent. Antenna elongate; length of third segment 5.67 × its width; ratio of the first four antennal segments 3.33:1:5.67:5; WA3 0.18× LA3; LA3 0.82 × UID. Mesosoma . Pronotum short, not elongated, angulate medially along posterior margin, setose throughout; pronotal collar inconspicuous ( Fig. 1a ). Notauli absent. Pleura partly setose. Postnotum thin band not obscured by setae. Dorsum of mesosoma with inconspicuous long setae except on pronotum and propodeum. Legs with all femora having fine setae dorsally, also with some ventrally on mid and hind coxae. Fore tarsus without welldefined tarsal comb; anterior row with two conical spines, apical spine equal in length to apical width of segment, basal spine shorter than width of segment; posterior row with three shorter spines. Hind tibia with spines hardly one-half width of segment, inner spur one-half width of basitarsus. Tibial brush thick, complete. Pulvillus weakly developed ( Fig. 1e ), one-fifth length of claw, pulvillar comb moderately developed, of ~12 subparallel thickened rays. Claws dentate with tooth beyond middle. Fore wings with MC scarcely its length from wing apex ( Fig. 1c ), outer section curved, broader than SMC2, SMC2 longer than broad, slightly narrowed above, both ends oblique, receiving first recurrent vein slightly before apex; SMC3 much longer below, but no longer above than SMC2, outer side slightly curved, receiving sinuous second recurrent slightly before middle, extension of median one-half of cell; basal vein ends slightly before transverse; in hind wings anal vein ends just before forking of cubitus. Propodeum short, nearly evenly rounded ( Fig. 1a ), with distinct vertical face and long setae throughout. Metasoma . Metasoma coriaceous ( Fig. 1a ). First metasomal segment with short setae on sides of basal part, venter with some setae on each segment, last segment with some long setae each side, those above few and not especially stout ( Fig. 1d ). Description of Allotype Male. Length 11.5 mm , fore wing length 9.5 mm . Coloration. Similar to female ( Fig. 2a ), except with wings only slightly fumose, with additional silver setae ventral and lateral to antennal scrobes ( Fig. 2b ), and with appressed setae around ventral margin of eyes and on clypeus grading to green from blue ( Fig. 2a ). Head. Head round ( Fig. 2b ); TFD 1.16 × FD; MID 0.70 × FD; setose with long setae. Ocelli in slight acute triangle; lateral ocelli slightly closer to each other than to compound eyes; POL 0.9 × OOL. Mandible wide, with two sharpened apical teeth, basal tooth longer. Clypeus truncate, large, anterior margin only slightly sinuous; LC 0.42 × WC; clypeal truncate, without projection medially; dorsal surface slightly convex laterally; sculpture obscured by dense setae. Maxillary beard absent. Antenna elongate; length of third segment 3.67 × width; ratio of the first four antennal segments 3:1:3.7:3.3; LA3 0.56 × UID. Mesosoma . Sculpture coriaceous where not obscured by setae ( Fig. 2a ). Pronotum short, not elongated, posterior margin angulated, pronotal collar inconspicuous. Notauli absent. Postnotum with integument covered by setae. Long setae lacking on femora, and with few shorter spines on tibia, inner spur 0.75 × length of basitarsus. Apical segment of fore tarsus parallel sided except for slight bulge on apical sixth of internal margin. Tibial brush thinning before apex, but complete. Pulvillus weakly developed, one-fifth length of claw, pulvillar comb moderately developed, of ~12 subparallel thickened rays. Claws with tooth. Wing venation as in female ( Fig. 2a ). Metasoma. Sculpture coriaceous ( Fig. 2a ). With few fine setae present on venter, lacking brush; last two segments are peculiar with upper margin of S5 extended down as high carina much above convex surface of sternum, S6 with short subgenital plate much elevated. Genitalia. Paramere short, ~0.75 × length of aedeagus, not bypassing aedeagus and parapenial lobes ( Fig. 2c ); basal third as wide as remainder and not laterally flattened; apical two-thirds finger-like; setae long, thin, sparse, found throughout apical two-thirds; ventral squama absent ( Fig. 2c ). Parapenial lobe split; with apex curved and narrowing ( Fig. 2c ). Digitus narrow, rounded apically; length 0.9 × paramere length ( Fig. 2c ). Single pair of basal hooklets present ( Fig. 2c ). Aedeagus long, slender basally, widening apically, slightly longer than parapenial lobe, apex flaring laterally ( Fig. 2c ). Material Examined. In addition to holotype and allotype : Brazil , Santa Catarina , Nova Teutônia, 1♀ , 3.Feb.1956 , Plaumann (EMUS). Remarks. The genitalia of the allotype have been poorly extracted and slide mounted. The subgenital plate is missing and the sixth sternum has been damaged in the process of extraction, so characters associated with the subgenital plate and sixth tergum could not be studied and the original description must be trusted. Discussion. This genus takes up a peculiar position in Neotropical Pompilinae being seemingly annectant to Anoplius and to the Arachnospila genus-group, made up of Ammosphex Wilke, 1943 , Anoplochares Banks, 1939 , and Arachnospila . With the Arachnospila genus-group, Neanoplius shares having a reduced pulvillus, having a median row of ventral spines on the apical tarsomeres, and lacking dense bristles on the last metasomal tergum, while with Anoplius , Neanoplius shares having weakly developed parameres and one basal hooklet on the male genitalia, and the reduced tarsal comb in the female. It can be separated from these two groups by the characters listed in the generic diagnosis. Accounting for both male and female morphology, this genus is most likely a derived member of the Arachnospila genus-group, and more distantly related to Anoplius , which is contrary to Banks (1947) . Banks (1947) described this genus as having no comb of spines on front leg, but then elaborated that there are two moderate spines on basitarsus, but none at middle of second joint. In any case, two spines are present on the basitarsus of this genus, but do not form a strong comb as seen in Arachnospila or Anoplius ( Arachnophroctonus Ashmead, 1902 ), being more similar to that of Anoplius s.s. or Anoplochares . Additionally, there are no lateral spines on the following tarsomeres except apically. FIGURE 1. Neanoplius coeruleosomus female, holotype. A. habitus; B. head, frontal view; C. fore wing; D. metasoma; and E. apical tarsomere of hind leg. Banks (1947) did not mention the presence of ventral spines on the apical tarsal segments Neanoplius females in the original description. In Banks’ (1947) key to the genera, however, he separates Neanoplius from Anoplius by two characters, one of which is “No spines beneath last joint of hind tarsi.” The female of Neanoplius actually has a row of three median spines located ventrally on the apical tarsal segments. As such, Neanoplius will not key out properly using the only key that includes this genus (i.e. Banks 1947 ). In Fernández and Sharkey (2006) , Neanoplius keys out to Arachnospila from which it can be separated by the lack of a well-developed tarsal comb in the female and only a single pair of hooklets on the genitalia along with weakly modified apical tarsal segment of the foreleg having a slight inner lobe at apical fifth in the male. In Evans’ keys (1951, 1966), Neanoplius keys out to Pompilus Fab., 1798 , but dead ends at couplets separating Anoplochares from the remaining genera (as subgenera of Pompilus ). Neanoplius can be separated from the rest by the lack of a well-developed tarsal comb and presence of a truncated clypeus that barely reveals the apex of the labrum in the female, and the single pair of hooklets on the genitalia along with weakly modified apical tarsal segment of the foreleg having a slight inner lobe at apical fifth of the male. Lastly, the Arachnospila genus-group ( Arachnospila , Ammosphex and Anoplochares ) is not known from Brazil . Currently in South America, there are six species of this genus-group: three of which are known only from Chile [ Arachnospila imitatrix Wahis, 2002 ♀ , Ammosphex eximia (Herbst, 1928) ♀ , and Am. smaragdina (Herbst, 1928) ♂ ♀ ]; two of which are known from Peru [ Ar. dichromorphus ( Rohwer, 1913 ) ♀ , and Ar. titicacaensis ( Strand, 1911 ) ♀ (= Pycnopompilus tolteca ( Banks, 1947 ) ]; and one from Argentina [ Ar. trochilinus ( Holmberg, 1881 ) ♀ ]. The South American members of the Arachnospila genus-group will be further dealt with in a proceeding study. Regardless, coloration will immediately serve to separate all except Am. smaragdina and Ar. trochilinus from Neanoplius coeruleosomus . The species, Am. smaragdina and N. coeruleosomus , can be separated by differences in the fore tarsal comb of the female (being well developed with long flattened spines in Am. smaragdina ), the asymmetry of the apical tarsal segment of the fore tarsus in the male (being obviously asymmetrical in Am. smaragdina ), and more subtle differences in coloration (being bright metallic green in Am. smaragdina ), in addition to the shortened venation and smaller body size typified by Ammosphex . The male of Ar. trochilinus is unknown, but the female of this species can be separated from N. coeruleosomus by the same structural characters listed above for Arachnospila .