Eumenes filiformis de Saussure, 1855
Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa & Carpenter, James, 2018, Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World, Zootaxa 4459 (1), pp. 1-52: 34-36
treatment provided by
|Eumenes filiformis de Saussure, 1855|
Eumenes filiformis de Saussure, 1855 , 3: 146.
Type data: Lecto type at MRSNAbout MRSN.
Type locality: “Le Bresil ”.
Smith, 1857, 5: 30 (cat.).
de Saussure, 1875, 254: 109.
Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 24 (cat.).
Fox, 1899, 1899: 457.
Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22 (cat.).
Bertoni, 1912, 22: 106, 108.
Zavattari, 1912, 78A (4): 129.
Giordani Soika, 1961, 1: 241;
Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 43 (designation of Lectotype).
Carpenter & van der Vecht, 1991, 60: 211, 231 (distinct species).
West-Eberhard et al., 1995: 573.
Rasmussen & Asenjo, 2009, 15: 38 (list).
Zeteumenes filicornis [!]; Bertoni, 1921, 1: 11
Zeteumenes (Beteumenes) filicornis ; Bertoni, 1934, 3: 111, 115.
Bertoni, 1934, Rev. Soc. Cient. Parag. 3: 111, 115.
Type data: Type male at IBNPY.
Type locality: “ Costa Rica ”.
Zeteumenoides filiformis ; Giordani Soika, 1972, 104: 110.
Eumenes (Zeteumenoides) versicolor filiformis ; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 43.
Distribution: Brazil (AM, AP*, PA*, RO); Bolivia * (Coroico); Colombia (Amazonas *, Arauca *, Boyaca *, Meta, Putumayo *, Vaupés *); Costa Rica * (San José); French Guyana (St. Laurent du Maroni); Panama * (Chiriqui); Paraguay *; Peru (Chamchamayo, Loreto *, Ucayali *); Suriname *.
* Records from the literature.
Comments and diagnosis. Giordani Soika (1978) treated filiformis and rufomaculatus as subspecies of E. versicolor that differed basically by coloration. Even though he illustrated some differences in the digitus (p. 40 and figs 35, 37, 39), he judged them as not appreciable. Later, Carpenter & Vecth (1991) studied the specimenss from CMNHAbout CMNH and proposed to treat them as different species based on morphological characters. We confirm this treatment herein and sustain E. filiformis , E. rufomaculatus and E. versicolor as separate species. Eumenes filiformis has the clypeus somewhat narrow (fig. 74), with the punctation coarse and evident on the basal half and reduced on the apical half, while E. rufomaculatus and E. versicolor have the clypeus broader, with punctation uniformly distributed (fig. 75, 76). Besides that, the humeral region is less projecting, best observed in oblique view. We examined the male genitalia from the three species and found appreciable characters that confirm them as separate taxa: the aedeagus of each taxon is similar, but the ventral margin in E. filiformis is less projecting than E. rufomaculatus . The digitus of E. filiformis and E. versicolor are flattened, but the dorsal margin in E. filiformis is angled with evident and longer bristles, mostly on the ventral margin ( Fig. 123View FIGURES 110–125), while in the other two species it is rounded with slightly shorter and less evident bristles (fig. 124, 125). The digitus of E. rufomaculatus is broad laterally, with the dorsal margin angled and with less evident bristles compared to E. filiformis .
Besides the features described above, E. filiformis may be identified by having the body predominantly black ( Fig. 24View FIGURES 13–26), including the pterostigma, costal, medial, and submedial cells of the fore wings; T1 very long and narrow; and the apical region from the ventral surface of T1 ventrally projecting (fig. 61).
We did not examine the type specimen of E. filiformis but we based the redescription on 8 specimens (7 females and 1 female).
Female ( Fig. 24View FIGURES 13–26). Color, head: Black, with yellow marks as follows: longitudinal broad band on each side of clypeus; a band on inter-antennal region; narrow stripe on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eye. Part of pedicel and flagellum yellow-orange. Mesosoma: Black, with yellow marks as follows: small mark on humeral region of pronotum; a narrow stripe along the posterior edge of pronotum; parategula. Small marks on coxae, distal region of femora and longitudinal bands on tibiae. Metasoma: Black, with yellow marks: a narrow transverse band on apex of T1, T2, and S2–S5. Apex of T3–T6 and S6 with brownish bands on apex. Wings: Apical half hyaline; basal half darker, mainly costal, medial, submedial cells and pterostigma. Veins darker.
Pubescence, head: Clypeus with short whitish (better observed in oblique view) pubescence. Frons, vertex and occipital region with long and golden pubescence, while on gena it is short (shorter than on clypeus). Scape with golden pubescence as short as on clypeus. Mesosoma: covered with golden pubescence. Short pubescence on pronotum, mesoscutum and lateral surface of mesosoma and longer (as long as on frons and vertex) on scutellum, metanotum and posterior face of propodeum. Trochanter and basal half of femur of the fore leg with erect golden bristles. External surface of tibiae also with golden and erect bristles, longer than on fore femur. Metasoma: Covered with golden pubescence. Short pubescence on dorsal face of T1 and other segments. Ventral surface of T1 with scattered long bristles. Apex of the other segments with long bristles on apex.
Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with weak punctation, more evident on basal half; frons with coarse and moderately dense punctation; reduced punctation behind the ocelli and on gena. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and moderately dense punctation as on frons, except on basal half of mesepisternum where it is sparser.
Metasoma: Dorsal surface of T1 with coarser and moderately dense punctation, becoming denser on apex. Lateral surface of T1 with scattered punctures, while ventral surface without evident punctation. Dorsal surface of T2 with coarse and dense punctation, becoming slightly weaker and sparser towards lateral surface. T3–T6 and S2–S6 without evident punctation.
Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide, with the apex concave forming two rounded projections with weak carinae on apex ( Fig. 74View FIGURES 66–76); inter-antennal wider than the antennal socket, with a center tubercle on center region; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eye than to each other; occipital carina angled on middle region of gena and close to the compound eyes next to the mandible. Mesosoma: pronotal fovea present; pronotal carina present dorsally and and more developed laterally; humeral region weakly projecting; mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding the mesepisternum; posterior projection of tegula weakle developed and rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum strongly concave on basal half. Basal region of the external surface of fore coxa with a short and weak carina. Metasoma: T1 very long, more than five times longer than wide ( Fig. 40View FIGURES 27–42); T2 longer than wide, with the lateral margins weakly concave ( Fig. 56View FIGURES 43–58); apical lamella on apex of T2, becoming reduced towards lateral margins. S2 with a weak longitudinal elevation, better observed in oblique view.
Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F11 long, without longitudinal carina, apex pointed surpassing the apical edge of F8 ( Fig. 90View FIGURES 77–92). Ventral surface without microscopis erect bristles. S7 flattened apically with erect bristles on apex. Color, pubescence, surface of integument and other structure as in females.
Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 106 a, b. Paramere ( Fig. 106cView FIGURES 102–109) with bristles on middle area of gonostyle; digitus broad in basal half, becoming slender toward apex (fig. 123), with short and evident bristles on the base and slightly shorter toward apex; cuspis with short and erect bristles; volsella with moderately long and scattered bristles (longer then on digitus); distal lobe truncate, without bristles.
Variation: Yellow marks on clypeus reduced; band on apex of T1 and T 2 may be brownish.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.