The Wharton Lab

Aechmeta Townes, 1970: 93. Type species: Ctenopelma indotata Davis, 1897. Original designation.

The following valid species were included by Townes (1970), and there have been no recent changes.
Aechmeta indotata (Davis, 1897)
Aechmeta primosa (Davis, 1897)

The description above is based on specimens of Aechmeta indotata.

Defining features include the sexually dimorphic clypeus (Figs 1, 2), spinose hind tibia, and short, triangular hind tibial spurs (Fig. 3). In his original description of Aechmeta, Townes (1970) suggested that the hind tibial spurs are longer and subcylindric in all other genera of Perilissini. A few species of Lathrolestes, however, have relatively short, somewhat broadened spurs. The species of Aechmeta superficially resemble those of Atithasus (Mesoleiini) in several respects.

Clypeus (Figs 2, 3) with ventral margin very thick and blunt; with small, thin, rounded tooth laterally in female, this absent in male; clypeus divided into dorsal and vental halves, the ventral portion somewhat reflected medially, with convex margin; epistomal sulcus distinct, clypeus in profile distinctly protruding. Malar space nearly absent. Mandible with ventral tooth longer than dorsal tooth. Ocelli small, lateral ocellus distinctly shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palp not exceptionally long, shorter than head height; female antennae about as long as body; first flagellomere with small tyloid containing 15 or fewer sensilla. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well before base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina distant from anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus short, shallowly but distinctly impressed anteriorly. Small u- to v-shaped groove or notch present between propodeum and metanotum in lateral view; pleural carina complete, well-developed; propodeal carinae well-developed, complete, with large, hexagonal areola, though lateral portions of transverse carinae sometimes low and difficult to see (as in Fig. 5). Apex of mid tibia with small tooth barely indicated, the apical rim distinctly more rounded than that of fore tibia; apex of hind tibia with poorly developed comb: setae widely spaced, not dense; posterior hind tibial spur (Fig. 4) relatively short, somewhat triangular, at most 4X longer than maximum width near base; tarsal claws completely pectinate. Fore wing areolet present; Rs+2r arising near middle of stigma. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 slightly (rarely) to distinctly (commonly) shorter than 1cu-a. T1 (Fig. 5) not long and slender; without dorsal carinae, but with weak median impression, dorsal surface moderately arched, more flattened posteriorly in male; with small median basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment; dorsal-lateral carina extending from spiracle to apex of T1 in most males, usually present as short carina basally and largely absent distally in females; glymmae on each side meeting on the midline posterior to dorsal tendon attachment, large, deep, separated at midline by translucent partition. T2 thyridium absent; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor straight, relatively broad at base, with deep subapical notch; ovipositor sheath gradually expanding distally, truncate at apex. Male parameres strongly excavated ventral-medially but not dorsal-medially, the parameres thus broad, rectangular in dorsal view, with quadrate tooth angled ventrally on ventral side (Figs 7, 8); aedeagus rounded and clubbed distally, supported basally by sclerotized rods.

This genus is known only from eastern United States; I have seen specimens from Michigan, New York, Texas, and Virginia.

Hosts and biological information are unknown.

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 for useful feedback throughout our study and to Gavin Broad for exchange of information on Perilissini. 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, Amanda Ladigo, Heather Cummins, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted with image capture, 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 and 1026618. Page last updated February, 2011.

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