An illustrated atlas for male genitalia of the New World Polistes Latreille, 1802 (Vespidae: Polistinae) Author Somavilla, Alexandre Author Oliveira, Marcio Luiz Author Andena, Sergio Ricardo Author Carpenter, James Michael text Zootaxa 2018 2018-10-25 4504 3 301 344 journal article 28082 10.11646/zootaxa.4504.3.1 6462b796-ce0d-40ed-83ff-e69e9f290f8e 1175-5326 2606326 1B0BEDBC-9409-41D7-B752-81D9843BACAA Polistes ( Aphanilopterus ) comanchus de Saussure Paramere ( Fig. 9A ): (1) about three times longer than wide at the middle; (2) lateral groove shallow, more pronounced on the upper part; (3) parameral spine long (about 1/6 the total length of paramere), pointed apically with long and dense bristles; (4) paramere lobe widely developed and rounded; (5) inferior portion of paramere narrow, about 2/3 the width at the middle portion. Aedeagus ( Fig. 9B, C ): slender; (1) apical portion with fine denticulation, extended only on the apical portion, lateral margin straight; (2) penis valve widely dilated and with a slight central entrance (about 1/3 of the total length of apical portion); (3) median expansion widely developed, rounded apex; (4) lateral apodeme directed forward, with a weak central projection and shorter than the ventral process, (5) ventral process rounded and dilated in the apex; (6) inferior portion of aedeagus curved, in lateral view. Digitus ( Fig. 9D ): slender; (1) apical process developed, about twice longer than the digitus base, same width from the base to the apex, (2) apex rounded; (3) anteroventral lobe short and rounded apically; (4) punctation strong and forming a central band around the base of the digitus; (5) evanescent bristles. Cuspis ( Fig. 9E ): slender; (1) apex pointed and tapering abruptly to the end; (2) long and dense bristles on cuspis; (3) punctation restricted on the lateral lobe; (4) lower part developed with long bristles. Remarks. In Richards (1978:485) , P. comanchus is divided into two subspecies, P. comanchus comanchus and P. comamchus navajoe Cresson. Such division was proposed based on color variation, which is not considered in this work. His male description (p. 486) refers to P. comanchus navajoe , but did not include male genitalia.