The Wharton Lab

Satous Townes, 1970: 63. Type species: Satous rudis Townes, 1970. By original designation.

The above redescription was based on one female paratype (AEIC) representing each of the two described species: Satous rudis and Satous constrictus.

In his original description of this genus, Townes (1970) stated that one of the key characteristics of the tribe Ctenopelmatini, the carina between the base of T2 and the spiracle, was broad and indistinct in members of the genus Satous.

Within the Ctenopelmatini, members of the genus Satous are characterized by the absence of a glymma and the unequal size of the mandibular teeth, with the ventral tooth much larger than the dorsal tooth. Satous differs from Xenoschesis primarily in the sculpture of the propodeum, with Xenoschesis lacking the lateral longitudinal carinae. Females of Xenoschesis also have the metasoma laterally compressed apically, unlike females of Satous in which the metasoma is rounded or depressed apically. In Satous, the head, mesosoma, and basal half of the metasoma are deeply, coarsely punctate.

Frons without median horn or elevated carina. Clypeus short and wide, ventral margin bluntly rounded, somewhat truncate (Figs 2-4); epistomal sulcus deep, distinctly separating clypeus from face. Malar space absent. Mandible (Figs 3-4) moderately long, broad basally, tapered apically, strongly curved and slightly twisted, ventral tooth distinctly longer than dorsal tooth. Ocelli small, lateral ocellus much shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palp distinctly shorter than head height; female antenna about as long as body; first flagellomere without tyloid. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina distinctly separated from anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus very shallow, nearly parallel-sided, extending nearly full length of mesoscutum. Distinct u- or v-shaped notch present between anterior end of lateral longitudinal carina of propodeum and adjacent part of metanotum in lateral view, depth and shape largely obscured by dense setae; pleural carina complete, well-developed; median and lateral longitudinal carinae of propodeum well-developed (Fig. 7), complete or nearly so with areola not distinctly separated from basal area, the anterior transverse carina weak to absent medially, costula completely absent, petiolar area with or without median longitudinal carina, posterior transverse carina present at least in part. Apical margin of mid tibia weakly expanded as a slightly angular tooth not as sharp as that on fore tibia; comb on hind tibia not well developed; hind tibial spurs short, broadly triangular (Fig. 6); membranous flap on apical margin of fore tibia gradually tapered apically; all tarsal claws simple, never pectinate. Fore wing areolet absent (Fig. 1). Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 approximately equal in length to 1cu-a. T1 (Figs 7-10) long and slender basally, gradually to abruptly widening posteriorly (Figs 9-10), apex 3-4 (Satous rudis female) or 4-5 (Satous constrictus female) times wider than near base; dorsal carinae sharp (Figs 7-8), distinctly elevated over basal 0.8, with shallow basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment; dorsal-lateral carina varying from sharp and distinct basally and apically to weak; glymmae absent. S1 extending nearly to level of spiracle in both species, but spiracle past midpoint in Satous rudis and not quite at midpoint in Satous constrictus. T2 lateral carina rounded in Satous constrictus, sharp in Satous rudis; T2 thyridium absent; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor short, straight, somewhat broadened basally, narrow apically, without subapical, dorsal notch; ovipositor sheath shorter than hind tibial spur. Apex of female metasoma as in Fig. 11.

There are two known species: one described from Japan and the other from Korea.

Hosts and biology are apparently unknown.

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a larger collaborative effort on the genera of Ctenopelmatinae and part of a research project on Ctenopelmatini by NSF/REU student Matt Clark. This work would not have been possible without the groundwork provided by Ian Gauld’s study of the Australian and Costa Rican faunas, and we are particularly grateful for his assistance in many aspects of this study. We also thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study and for extended loans of the material used for this particular webpage. Matt Yoder provided considerable assistance with databasing issues, and our use of PURLs (http://purl.oclc.org) in this regard follows the example of their use in publications by Norm Johnson. Andrea Walker, Caitlin Nessner, Matt Clark, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted us with image processing, formatting, and literature retrieval. This study was supported by the National Science Foundation’s PEET program under Grant No. DEB 0328922 and associated REU supplement nos DEB 0923134 and 1026618.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplement DEB 0923134 and 1026618.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.