The Wharton Lab

Glyptorhaestus Thomson, 1894: 1976.
Type species: Rhaestus (Glyptorhaestus) punctatus Thomson. Designated by Viereck (1914).
Loxoneurus Schmiedeknecht, 1913: 2711 (in key).
Type species: Loxoneurus thuringiacus Schmiedeknecht Included in text by Schmiedeknecht, 1913. (treated as junior subjective synonym of Glyptorhaestus punctulatus Woldstedt by Hinz 1975). Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965: 243).
Oocenteter Cushman, 1935: 555.
Type species: Oocenteter tomostethi Cushman. Original designation. Townes et al. (1965: 243).

Thomson’s work is variously cited as 1893 or 1894.

The following valid species were included by Yu et al. (2012):

Glyptorhaestus boschmai Teunissen, 1953
Glyptorhaestus japonicus Hinz, 1975
Glyptorhaestus koreator Hinz, 1975
Glyptorhaestus nigrifemur Hinz, 2000
Glyptorhaestus periclistor Hinz, 1975
Glyptorhaestus pumilus Hinz, 1975
Glyptorhaestus punctatus (Thomson, 1890)
Glyptorhaestus punctulatus (Woldstedt, 1877)
Glyptorhaestus selandrivorus (Giraud, 1872)
Glyptorhaestus tomostethi (Cushman, 1935)

A key to known species was provided by Hinz (1975).

The species of Glyptorhaestus are recognized by the combination of glymma present, mandible with deep basal impression, and clypeus separated from face by a distinct epistomal sulcus. Most specimens have a fore wing areolet and the epicnemial carina extending to the anterior margin of the mesopleuron, but this is not always the case and thus the key in Townes (1970) sometimes fails.

Femaie with inner eye margins only weakly converging ventrally (Fig. 1) if at all. Clypeus (Figs 1, 2) with a few long, scattered, anterior-ventrally directed setae, otherwise largely bare but with dorsal half covered by long, ventrally-directed facial setae; densely punctate to finely granular dorsally, weakly rugulose to polished over at least ventral 0.5; ventral margin blunt, varying among species from evenly convex to weakly truncate; epistomal sulcus distinctly impressed throughout. Face densely sculptured: finely granular; frons densely, coarsely punctate to shagreened, vertex densely but more finely punctate; frons and vertex densely setose. Malar space short, varying from virtually absent to almost half basal width of mandible; malar sulcus absent. Mandible (Fig. 2) with ventral tooth almost twice length of dorsal tooth; with very distinct basal, somewhat transverse, pit-like depression. Maxillary palps less than height of head. Female antenna less than half length of body; male antenna nearly as long as body. Hypostomal carina meeting occipital carina distinctly dorsad base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epicnemial carina (Fig. 6) usually extending to anterior margin of mesopleuron but sometimes very weakly developed dorsally and appearing to end distant from anterior margin (e. g. some specimens of G. punctatus). Notaulus (Fig. 3) varying from a shallow, anterior depression confined largely to anterior declivity to complete or nearly so as in G. tomostethi. Groove between propodeum and metapleuron distinctly u-shaped (Figs 8, 9); broad, u-shaped groove mid-dorsally between propodeum and metanotum readily visible in lateral view; pleural carina well-developed ventrally, extending to level of propodeal spiracle; propodeum (Fig. 7) with posterior transverse carina usually well developed, anterior transverse carinae absent or poorly developed, areola absent or rarely very small, usually indicated posteriorly but effaced anteriorly; lateral and narrowly separated median longitudinal carinae usually present, though median carinae sometimes effaced. Apical margin of mid tibia expanded into a distinct tooth similar to that of fore leg only in some species; apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia present or absent but not particularly well-developed when present; posterior hind tibial spur at least 6x longer than maximum width at base; tarsal claws on fore and hind legs pectinate in at least one species, not pectinate in others. Fore wing (Fig. 4) areolet present or absent; stigma relatively broad with Rs+2r arising near midpoint of stigma. Hind wing (Fig. 5) with first abscissa of CU1 much longer than 1cu-a. T1 (Fig. 10) distinctly broadening from base to apex in female, more slender and gradually broadening in male; dorsal carinae sometimes poorly indicated (Fig. 10) but usually distinctly elevated basally, not extending much beyond level of spiracle, never reaching apex; basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment shallow but appearing deeper because of inflated basal portion of T1; dorsal-lateral carina usually present, rarely absent between spiracle and apex of T1; glymma large, deep, extending to depression at base of dorsal tendon attachment. S1 very short in G. tomostethi and G. punctulatus, extending about half distance to spiracle. T2 thyridium absent; laterotergites of T2 and T3 separated by creases from median tergite. Ovipositor (Fig. 12) shallowly and evenly upcurved throughout; apical half uniformly needle-like, abruptly narrowing from broader basal bulb; without dorsal, subapical notch. Ovipositor sheath sparsely setose and narrowly sickle-shaped, a little more curved than ovipositor.

This description is based largely on specimens of G. tomostethi, G. punctatus, and G. punctulatus in the AEI and CNC.

Holarctic.

Yu et al. (2005) list the following hosts and references for those hosts records.

Apethymus braccatus (Aubert 2000)
Apethymus serotinus (Aubert 2000)
Periclista albida (Hinz 1975)
Periclista melanocephala (Giraud 1872)
Periclista pubescens (Giraud 1872)
Tomostethus multicinctus (Cushman 1935; McConnell 1938; Townes 1945; Clausen 1954)

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a larger collaborative effort on the genera of Ctenopelmatinae.

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 of the American Entomological Institute and Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection for extended loans of the material used for this study and particularly Dave Karlsson for sending valuable material from the Swedish Malaise Trap Survey. 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, Andrea Walker, Patricia Turner, Caitlin Nessner, Amanda Ladigo, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted 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 #s DEB 0723663, 0923134, and 1026618. Page last updated Jan, 2015.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplements DEB 0723663, 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.