Xenoschesis (Polycinetis) Foerster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Polycinetis Foerster, 1869: 198. Type species: Notopygus resplendens Holmgren, 1855. Included by Woldstedt (1877: 458). Monobasic.

Prosmorus Foerster, 1869: 198. Type species: Notopygus resplendens Holmgren, 1855. Included by Thomson (1894: 1983).

Erigloea Foerster, 1869: 202. Type species: Erigloea polita Kriechbaumer [= Xenoschesis resplendens (Holmgren)]. Designated by Viereck (1914: 120).

Polycintus Thomson, 1894: 1983. Unjustified emendation.

The synonymy of Polycinetis with Xenoschesis was attributed to Townes (1945) by Perkins (1962), but Townes (1945) followed Viereck (1914: 120), who designated Exetastes fulvipes Gravenhorst as the type species of Polycinetis Foerster sensu Dalla Torre (1901) and Polycinetis Foerster sensu Thomson (1894). These designations left Polycinetis isogenotypic with Xenoschesis, as noted by Viereck (1914: 120). Townes (1945: 491) attributed authorship of Polycinetis to Thomson and therefore ignored the fact that Viereck (1914: 120), in an apparent attempt to cover all the bases, also listed resplendens as the type species of Polycinetis Foerster sensu Woldstedt (1877). Townes (1970) ultimately accepted Foerster’s genera as valid and listed resplendens as the type species of Polycinetis, attributing this to Woldstedt (1877).

The type species of Polycinetis is listed as a junior synonym of Tryphon ustulatus Desvignes, 1856 by Yu et al. (2012)

Holarctic. Yu et al. (2012) list seven valid species for this subgenus.
Diagnosis and Relationships
The two subgenera, Xenoschesis s.s. and Polycinetis, were separated by Townes (1970) on the basis of differences in propodeal sculpture and size of the ovipositor sheath. The propodeum has a more or less distinct petiolar area in Xenoschesis s.s. (Fig. 1) but not in Polycinetis (Fig. 2). The ovipositor and sheath are longer in Xenoschesis s.s. (Fig. 3) and the sheath is more bulbous in Polycinetis (Fig. 4).

Otherwise, these two subgenera of Xenoschesis differ from other Ctenopelmatini by the shape of the apically pointed T8 in females and the more poorly developed propodeal carination.

1. Xenoschesis (Polycinetis) propodeu...
2. Xenoschesis (Xenoschesis) propos...
3. Xenoschesis (Polycinetis) ov...
4. Xenoschesis (Xenoschesis) ovipo...
Frons without median horn or elevated carina. Clypeus short and wide, ventral 0.25 distinctly impressed, with ventral margin sharp, rounded margin above impression somewhat convex, sharp margin of impressed portion weakly concave; epistomal sulcus weak, clypeus not sharply separated from face. Malar space absent or nearly so. Mandible moderately long, broad basally, weakly tapered and curving apically, ventral tooth about same size as dorsal tooth. Ocelli moderate to large, lateral ocellus varying from slightly shorter than distance between ocellus and eye to equal this distance. Maxillary palp shorter than head height; female antenna varying from equal to a little shorter than length of body; first flagellomere without tyloid. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia present though sometimes weak. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina distinctly separated from anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus deep, narrow, extending to or nearly to level of tegula, fading posteriorly, not extending posteriorad tegula. Notch between anterior end of lateral longitudinal carina of propodeum and adjacent part of metanotum indistinct; metanotum overhanging propodeum medially in lateral view, but not forming a distinct u- or v-shaped notch; pleural carina usually present only dorsally, represented ventrally by a deep sulcus; propodeal carinae greatly reduced to a pair of carinae extending about one-fourth distance of propodeum anteriorly from the posterior margin (Fig. 1). Apical margin of mid tibia expanded as an angular tooth that is not quite so protruding as that on fore tibia; comb on hind tibia not well developed; hind tibial spurs fairly long, slender (as in Xenoschesis s.s.); membranous flap on apical margin of fore tibia present; all tarsal claws simple for most of their length, with a few, short pectinations basally, these very hard to see. Fore wing areolet present. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 usually distinctly longer than 1 cu-a, more rarely approximately equal in length to 1 cu-a. T1 long and relatively slender basally, gradually widening posteriorly, apex about 3.2-3.8 (female) times wider than near base; dorsal carinae sharp basally around depression for dorsal tendon attachment, rounded and less distinct to spiracle, indistinct posteriorad spiracle and not extending to apex; dorsal-lateral carina sharp and distinct from spiracle to apex; glymma absent. S1 extending 0.6-0.8 times distance to spiracle. T2 lateral carina rounded, often indistinct; T2 thyridium absent; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor (Fig. 2)short, straight, barely protruding from apex of metasoma, ovipositor with broad subapical, dorsal notch; ovipositor sheath short, broad, club-shaped (Fig. 2). Cerci and anal opening completely encircled by 8th metasomal tergum, the tergum pointed apically (Fig. 6). Apex of female metasoma as in Fig. 2.
1. Xenoschesis (Polycinetis) propodeu...
2. Xenoschesis (Polycinetis) ov...
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts

There are no specimens currently determined for this OTU, or those specimens determined for this OTU are not yet mappable.

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.