The Wharton Lab

Notopygus Holmgren, 1855: 115. Type species: Notopygus emarginatus Holmgren by subsequent designation by Viereck (1912: 176).

Antipygus Tschek, 1868: 438. Type species: Antipygus megerlei Tschek. Monobasic. Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965: 241).

Holmgren (1855) is sometimes listed under various dates.

The Palaearctic species were revised by Kasparyan (2002).
Seventeen valid species are listed by Yu et al. (2012).

Notopygus is readily separated from Ctenopelma by the absence of a basal glymma. It is most readily separated from Xenoschesis by the presence of the lateral longitudinal carina (lacking in Xenoschesis). This thing doesn’t look anything at all like Ctenopelma even though they are supposedly in the same tribe. The Eastern Palaearctic Satous has the ventral tooth of the mandible about twice the length of the upper tooth whereas the two teeth are nearly equal in Notopygus (in Fig. 2 under the description, the dorsal tooth is broken and worn more than the ventral tooth and thus looks shorter than normal of Notopygus). Notopygus is similar to Homaspis in these respects and the two are very similar to one another. T2 is a little shorter in Notopygus (Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2), though this is not always apparent in males. The fore wing areolet is usually present in Notopygus and absent in Homaspis, but male Notopygus may have the areolet absent. Notopygus and Homaspis are most readily distinguished by differences in the female subgenital plate and relative position and shape of the ovipositor sheath. The subgenital plate is larger and rounded apicall in Notopygus but shorter, flatter, and apically subtruncate in Homaspis. The sheaths are compressed and dorsally directed in Notopygus but more or less depressed and dorso-posteriorly directed in Homaspis. In the relatively few species examined, the clypeus is rounded along the visible ventral margin in Notopygus but strongly impressed with a sharp ventral margin visible in Homaspis.

Frons without median horn or elevated carina. Clypeus short and wide, ventral margin bluntly rounded, somewhat truncate to very weakly concave (Fig. 2); epistomal sulcus deep, distinctly separating clypeus from face. Malar space absent. Mandible (Fig. 2) moderately long, broad basally, gradually tapered apically, weakly curved; not twisted; ventral tooth varying from equal to or longer than dorsal tooth. Lateral ocellus shorter than distance between ocellus and eye, though not strongly so. Maxillary palp shorter than head height; female antenna about as long as body; first flagellomere without tyloid. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina slightly but distinctly above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia distinct. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina distinctly separated from anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus absent or barely indicated as a short, broad, very shallow depression anteriorly. Propodeum and metanotum separated by broad, u-shaped groove middorsally in lateral view; u or v-shaped notch usually visible between anterior end of lateral longitudinal carina of propodeum and adjacent part of metanotum in lateral view, this notch sometimes broad and u-shaped but sometimes indistinct and more v-shaped; pleural carina complete, well-developed; median and lateral longitudinal carinae of propodeum complete and well-developed (Fig. 3), areola either present, as in Fig. 7, or not distinctly separated from basal area with the anterior transverse carina weak to absent medially, costula completely absent, petiolar area without median longitudinal carina, posterior transverse carina present and usually complete, absent in one of the species examined. Apical margin of mid tibia expanded as a slightly angular tooth nearly as well developed as that on fore tibia; comb on hind tibia absent to indistinct; hind tibial spurs short, distinctly curved (Fig. 1); membranous flap on apical margin of fore tibia well-developed; all tarsal claws largely simple, pectinate only at extreme base and this usually difficult to see even though the species are large. Fore wing areolet nearly always present (Fig. 4), absent in the one male examined. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 equal in length to or very slightly longer than 1cu-a. T1 (Figs 6-8) long and slender basally, gradually to abruptly widening posteriorly, apex 2.5-3.5 (female) times wider than near base; dorsal carina sharp (Figs 7-8), distinctly elevated at least over basal 0.8, sometimes complete, extending to apex; no distinct depression at dorsal tendon attachment; dorsal-lateral carina sharp and distinct, extending from spiracle to apex; glymma absent but small, distinct pit present just anterior to spiracle. S1 long, extending beyond middle to level of spiracle. T2 lateral carina sharp, strongly elevated; T2 thyridium absent; T2 size as in Fig. 8; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor and sheath short, directed vertically; sheath compressed, apical portion of ovipositor distinctly narrowed relative to base, curving anteriorly (Figs 10-11); female subgenital plate large, projecting, trough-like. Anal opening and cerci completely encircled by eighth metasomal tergum. Apex of female metasoma as in Figs 9-11.

The above description is modified from Townes (1970) and was based largely on three North American species in the Texas A&M University Collection.

Holarctic.

The following hosts and references for those hosts records are from Yu et al. (2005). Since at least some of these records are for species originally included in Notopygus but later transferred to Homaspis, these host records will need careful vetting.

Acantholyda erythrocephala Pinus (Aubert 2000)
Acantholyda hieroglyphica (Ozols 1961)
Acantholyda posticalis (Hardtl 1943; Aubert 2000)
Acantholyda posticalis Pinus (Shaw et al. 2003)
Cephalcia (Martinek 1989)
Cephalcia abietis (Sedivy 1965, Sedivy 1967; Jahn 1978; Eichhorn 1988; Martinek 1989; Martinek 1990; Kanecka 1993, 1995; Eichhorn and Bogenschutz 2000; Kasparyan 2002)
Cephalcia alpina (Rohrig 1953)
Cephalcia arvensis (Boas 1933; Martinek 1991, 1992)
Cephalcia arvensis fallenii (Martinek 1992)
Cephalcia lariciphila (Aubert 2000)
Pamphilius depressus (Hinz 1961)
Pamphilius hortorum (Hinz 1961)
Pamphilius hypotrophicus (Strand 1915; Scheidter 1916; Hedwig 1962; Schimitschek 1964)
Pamphilius latifrons (Shaw et al. 2003)
Pamphilius pallipes ( Kasparyan 2002)
Pamphilius pallipes Betula (Shaw et al. 2003)
Pamphilius vafer (Villemant 1982; Aubert 2000; Kasparyan 2002)

The following host records are doubtful.

Cimbex (Rondani 1872)
Cimbex femorata (Starke 1956)
Cydia strobilella (Constantineanu and Istrate 1971; Pisica and Petcu 1972)
Tenthredo campestris (Ratzeburg 1844)
Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Romanyk and Ruperez 1960)
Trichiosoma betuleti (Rudow 1917Hedwig 1958)
Trichiosoma nanae (Vikberg and Viitasaari 1991)
Trichiosoma sachalinense (Aubert 2000)
Trichiosoma sorbi (Rudow 1882)

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a larger collaborative effort on the genera of Ctenopelmatinae, with work on the Ctenopelmatini assisted by Matt Clark. Page last updated April, 2015.
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 the following curators for extended loans of the material used for this study: David Wahl of the American Entomological Institute and Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection. We also thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study. 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. Heather Cummins, Matt Clark, Patricia Mullins, Caitlin Nessner, Amy James, 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 0723663, 0822676, and 0923134.
This material is based upon work at Texas A&M University supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplements DEB 0723663, 0822676, and 0923134. 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.