Mischocyttarus mourei Zikán 1949

Silveira, Orlando Tobias, 2019, Taxonomic notes on social wasps of the groups of Mischocyttarus wagneri (Buysson 1908) and M. barbatus Richards 1945 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Polistinae), Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 63 (1), pp. 53-72 : 59-61

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rbe.2018.11.004
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5558D340-FFC8-0871-FFDC-F9D7B5BDFBF5
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Mischocyttarus mourei Zikán 1949
status

Treatment

Mischocyttarus mourei Zikán 1949 View in CoL

( Figs. 15b View Figs ; 27; 28 View Figs )

Mischocyttarus mourei Zikán 1949: 126 View in CoL , figs. 72–73, 211–212, 314, 373. Lectotype: male, Brazil, Paraná, Curitiba (IOC); designated by Richards (1978); [examined].

Mischocyttarus lanei Zikán 1949: 127 View in CoL , figs. 74, 213. Lectotype: female, Brazil, São Paulo, Campos da Serra (MZSP); designated by Richards (1978); [examined]; N. Syn.

Mischocyttarus plaumanni Zikán 1949: 167 View in CoL , figs. 104, 383. Lectotype: female, Brazil, Santa Catarina, Nova Teutônia (IOC); designated by Richards (1978); [examined]; N. Syn.

Mischocyttarus mourei View in CoL : Richards (1978: 346); Silveira (2008: 541). Mischocyttarus lanei View in CoL : Richards (1978: 347); Silveira (2008: 541). Mischocyttarus plaumanni View in CoL : Richards (1978: 333); Silveira (2008: 541).

Female

Length of fore wing 10–10.5 mm; clypeus wider than high, H/WCLP: 0.91–0.94, apex narrowly truncate, clypeus not so extensively in contact with eye, free upper part of lateral margin relatively long, a little more than 0.3 times the clypeus height at middle; malar space narrow; tentorial pit a little closer to eye margin than to antennal socket; ocelli as in an equilateral triangle; occiput rounded, carina absent; gena just narrower than the upper lobe of the eye; pronotum with lateral fovea, central part of the anterior margin of pronotum with the lamella wide and rather raised but not reflexed, region immediately behind produced into a secondary margin which is acute and projecting over the lamella; humeral angle poorly developed, total humeral width nearly equal to that of mesoscutum, sides of the pronotum as seen from above distinctly converging; pronotal carina completely absent at center, poorly salient at sides, not forming true lobes and not at all reflexed, with a very narrow translucent lamellar portion at the extremity, mesoscutum about as long as wide, L/WMS around 1.0, lateral margin adjacent to tegula well demarcated and prominent; fore wing only moderately elongate (mean LSI/HMP 2.31; min–max: 2.21–2.50); basal inner (posterior side) margin of fore coxa raised and strongly reflexed; inner claw of hind tarsus with the apex narrowly pointed, but not acute; propodeal dorsal cavity shorter and variably deep, oval or triangular in shape, propodeal valve variable often roughly triangular in shape, with lamellar margin behind distinctly oblique; first segment of metasoma moderately elongate, its length a little larger than 1.3× height of mesopleuron (mean LSI/HMP 1.33; min–max: 1.31–1.37), and more than 3.30× width at apex, about 2.20× wider at apex than at base, spiracles not prominent to moderately so.

Sculpture: head and mesosoma with rather fine sculpture of granulated aspect; clypeus with minute dense punctation (diameter ca. 0.015 mm), with moderately shining interstices measuring about one puncture diameter, and also with shallow sparser larger punctures (diameter 0.030 –0.037 mm), apical central area very finely reticulate, appearing almost smooth, shining, with a few interspersed large shallow punctures (diameter 0.037–0.44 mm); frons with similarly sized punctures, but deeper and a little more dense; mesopleuron with pattern similar to clypeus, but with the small-sized punctures a little closer; humeral area of pronotum with slightly larger and denser punctures (diameter ca 0.022 mm); mesoscutum with punctures slightly larger and less dense, diameter 0.022 –0.030 mm, interstices mostly of 0.5 puncture diameter); propodeum with punctures a little larger and sparser.

Vestiture: eyes bare; most body parts covered by fine appressed shining pubescence, but not dense to the point of obscuring the pattern of micropunctures underneath; clypeus with sparser erect longer setae especially near apical margin, shorter erect setae also on frons and vertex, setae on pronotum and mesoscutum often outstanding; gena beneath with distinctly longer hairs; propodeum dorsolaterally with very long fine hairs with recurved tip.

Color (see Figs. 27 and 28 View Figs ): Black, largely suffused with dark reddish brown (including propodeum dorsal surface) [sometimes practically entire body reddish brown]; mandibles reddish with a yellow longitudinal mark (sometimes distal region close to apical teeth also yellow); antennal flagellum reddish brown beneath; clypeus from nearly entirely brown (except apical region close to margin) to largely yellow with a central mark brown to blackish; inner orbits to top of eyes, malar space and genal stripe (outer orbit) [sometimes reduced], subspherical radicle of antennal scape and dorsal margin of antennal socket (sometimes as two definite spots, sometimes indistinct), two dots behind ocelli, marks on pronotum ventral corner and tubercle (sometimes indistinct), pronotal carina and hind margin of pronotum, two discal stripes on mesoscutum (sometimes evanescent or rarely absent; see Fig. 27 View Figs ), axillae and lateral spots on scutellum (sometimes merging to form a continuous transversal anterior yellow stripe), anterior margin and side plates of metanotum, valves (sometimes dark) and large spots (sometimes narrower) on propodeum, scrobal spot (sometimes undefined), hind margin of meso and metasternum (especially close to coxal articulation), apical mark on fore coxa (sometimes undefined), one dorsolateral stripe on mid coxa, and two stripes on hind coxa, marks on apex of all femora, posterior bands on gastral terga 1 and 2 (on the latter extending anteriorly at sides), rarely also rather indistinct bands on terga 3–4 (and on sterna laterally) [or without any well-defined bands on any segment], yellow; anterior ventral stripe on femora and tibiae light reddish brown; hind tibia distal pad and adjacent anterior area concolor, light orange brown, rarely with a preapical yellow spot; tarsal segments rather uniformly brown (distal ones slightly darker; see Fig. 15b View Figs ), lighter beneath; tegula brown, wings hyaline, venation brown.

Male

Length of fore wing 9.0 mm; mandible with four teeth; clypeus touching eyes, a little wider than high, ventral angle obtuse, apical margin almost rounded; antenna with the scape relatively shorter and wider, ventral surface of the flagellum with tyloids reduced or fragmented, apex of the antenna just rolled, hook like, antennomere 13 about 4× longer than wide; clypeus with very conspicuous dense shining pubescence.

Color: similar to female; mandibles, antenna beneath, face to a little above antennal sockets, anterior margin of scutellum, proepisternum, mesosternum widely, fore coxa, mid and hind coxae beneath, stripes on femora, bands on metasomal terga 1–5 and sterna 2–4, wide base of sternum 2, yellow. Condyles of mid and hind coxae pale, inner side of hind tibia with a yellow spot before the apical pad.

Variation

A few specimens of Zikán’s type series of M. mourei are relatively darker, with clypeus black and without the two mesoscutal yellow stripes ( Fig. 27 View Figs ), but the propodeal spots are always present, even if sometimes a little narrower (the holotype of M. lanei is precisely like this). On the other hand, the pattern observed in “ M. plaumanni ” is paler, with clypeus mostly yellow, extra mesopleural yellow marks and with very large propodeal spots. M. mourei differs from M. proximus mainly on color, the latter never presenting the paired propodeal yellow spots. Both species shows the length of the first metasomal segment intermediate between M. wagneri and M. declaratus (see Fig. 44 View Fig ).

Nest

Zikán (1949) did not make a description but presented photos of nests of M. mourei and of M. plaumanni (figs. 373 and 383, respectively). The first nest is smaller with an oval elongated shape and eccentric pedicel (Richards, 1978, says the pedicel is central), while the second one ( plaumanni , from Santa Catarina) has a more circular shape and is attached to a twig but the nest pedicel is not apparent. Both nests seem to present the pattern produced by alternation of adjacent short and full (complete) cells, like the nest of M. proximus in Fig. 16 View Figs , and also described for M. wagneri .

Distribution Brazil: São Paulo; Paraná; Santa Catarina (see Fig. 47 View Fig ).

Remarks

Interestingly, after describing M. mourei (mostly) from specimens from Curitiba (Paraná state), Zikán (1949) also mentioned records of his new species from Campos da Serra (São Paulo), precisely the type locality of M. lanei (described next in the same paper, pg. 127), and from Nova Teutônia (Santa Catarina), the type locality of M. plaumanni also described in that paper but, contrary to M. lanei , treated by Zikán as an unrelated (?) species in a different section of the work on page 167. The keying of these forms by Zikán’s criteria is not so easy to evaluate because his key is for the entire (and taxonomically “unstructured”) genus Mischocyttarus . However, the unavailability to Zikán of the male of his plaumanni seems to have been responsible for his treating of this new species together with those in which the male has the antenna with apical articles very short and “obtuse” (i.e. M. alfkenii , M. paraguayensis , M. mexicanus , etc.), a condition quite different of that in M. mourei , of which Zikán knew the male.

Richards (1978), on the other hand, treated M. plaumanni as a member of his “ wagneri group”, but strangely considered M. mourei as related to M. paraguayensis (!). So, we have here just the opposite situation because, as mentioned above (and in the descriptions section), the male antenna in M. mourei is just similar to that of the male in M. wagneri (and other related species; see Figs. 39; 41–43 View Figs ), and very different from that observed in M. paraguayensis (and Richards was certainly aware of this). Richards’s misinterpretation was certainly caused by the excess of importance given to the length of the first metasomal segment. On this respect, within this species-group, M. mourei is in an intermediate position as one can see in Fig. 44 View Fig and, on the other hand, specimens of M. plaumanni are not those with the highest values. So, designations by Richards (1978) of both plaumanni and mourei to species-groups were inconsistent regarding his own criterion.

Examined material: Brazil. Paraná: Curitiba , 3 females 7/x, 1 female 26/xi/1938, 2 females v/1939, 1 female x/1939, 1 female 5/iii, 1 female iv/1940 (paralectotypes of M. mourei ) ( IOC) ; “near” Curitiba, Campina Grande , 1 female 15/ii/1966, H. & M. Townes ( AEIC) ; Santa Catarina: Nova Teutônia , 1 female, F. Plaumann (paralectotype of M. mourei ), 1 female 28/iii/1933, F. Plaumann (paralectotype of M. plaumanni ) ( IOC) .