Synoecetes Förster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Synoecetes Foerster, 1869: 203. Type species: Mesoleptus sedulus Cresson, 1868, a junior, subjective synonym of Tryphon festivus Cresson, 1864. Subsequent designation by Viereck (1914), based on first inclusion of this and two other species in Synoecetes by Davis (1897): 279.

Synagrypnus Foerster, 1869: 203. Type species: Synagrypnus blancoburgensis Schmiedeknecht, 1914. Based on subsequent inclusion by Schmiedeknecht, 1914. Monobasic. Synonymized with Hodostates by Meyer (1936) and with Synoecetes by Townes et al. (1965).

Polyrhysia Foerster, 1869: 204. Type species: Tryphon tenuicornis Gravenhorst, 1829. Subsequent designation by Viereck (1914), based on first inclusion of this and another species in Polyrhysius by Thomson, 1893.

Polyrhysius Thomson, 1893: 1999. Unjustified emendation for Polyrhysia Foerster, 1869. See Perkins (1962) for an explanation of the Thomson emendations.

Glossorhachis Aubert, 1985. Type species: Tryphon tunetanus Schmiedeknecht, 1900. Monobasic and original designation. Initially proposed as a subgenus of Coelorhachis, and subsequently (Aubert 2000) transferred to Synoecetes.

The following valid species were included by Yu et al. (2005):
Synoecetes alpinator Aubert, 1970
Synoecetes anterior Thomson, 1893
Synoecetes blancoburgensis Schmiedeknecht, 1914
Synoecetes festivus Cresson, 1864
Synoecetes tenuicornis Gravenhorst, 1829
Synoecetes tunetanus Schmiedeknecht, 1900.

The above description was based on specimens of Synoecetes festivus from several Nearctic localities.

Diagnosis and Relationships
Defining features include the face densely covered with ventrally-directed, white setae (reminiscent of many Campopleginae and as shown in the figure below) and the deep basal pit for the dorsal tendon attachment.

Synoecetes belongs to a group of genera in which the dorsal tendon attachment is set within a deep basal median pit, with the glymmae extending towards the pit rather than meeting posterior to the pit to form a median, translucent window as in Perilissus and many other genera. Gauld (1997) included the Neotropical Tetrambon, Coelorhachis, Sialocara, Jorgeus, Xiomara, and Peakelestes in this group as well as the Holarctic Lathiponus, and Zaplethocornia. Aside from this feature, there is little to indicate the relationships of Synoecetes to other ctenopelmatine genera.

1. Synoecetes festivus face...
Clypeus (Fig. 2) with ventral margin bluntly rounded and thickened, especially medially, without lateral tooth; ventral margin convex; epistomal sulcus distinctly impressed throughout, clypeus weakly protruding in profile. Malar space indistinct, very short, nearly absent. Face densely covered with ventrally-directed, white setae in both sexes. Mandible with ventral tooth distinctly longer than dorsal tooth. Ocelli small, lateral ocellus much shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palp shorter than head height; female antenna a little longer than body; first flagellomere with discrete tyloid containing fewer than 15 sensilla. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina distant from anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus (Fig. 4) long, extending posterior to level of tegula as a distinctly impressed, narrow groove, then becoming broad and shallow as it fades into a broad mesoscutal depression posteriorly. Small but distinct u-shaped groove present between propodeum and metanotum in lateral view; pleural carina complete, well-developed; propodeal carinae well-developed, nearly complete, with large areola open or weakly closed anteriorly (Fig. 5). Apical margin of mid tibia sharply expanded into a small but distinct tooth similar to that on fore tibia; apical comb on hind tibia absent, at most poorly developed, row of setae present on posterior face but these widely spaced, not dense as in typical comb; posterior hind tibial spur at least 7x longer than maximum width at base; tarsal claws pectinate only at base, without pectination over at least apical half. Fore wing areolet present; stigma relatively broad, Rs+2r arising at or near midpoint. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 weakly to more commonly distinctly longer than 1cu-a. T1 (Figs 5, 6) not long and slender, gradually broadening posteriorly, usually with sharp, closely spaced dorsal carinae extending at least to level of spiracles; basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment distinct (Figs 5, 6); sharp dorsal-lateral carina extending from spiracle to apex of T1; glymma very broad, deep, extending into median basal depression, the two glymmae not meeting on each side posterior to basal depression. T2 thyridium absent; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor straight, relatively broad at base, with distinct subapical notch, the upper and lower valves very narrow distad notch; ovipositor sheath gradually expanded and rounded distally. Male parameres broad, rectangular in dorsal view, never narrowly attenuate distally; aedeagus rounded and weakly clubbed distally.
1.Synoecetes festivus lateral habitus
2. Synoecetes festivus face...
3. Synoecete...
4. Synoecetes f...
5. Synoecetes ...
6. Synoecetes fe...
This is a Holarctic genus, containing the type species from North America and several species from the Palaearctic. Synoecetes tunetanus, placed by Aubert (2000) in a separate subgenus, was described from Tunisia.
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
Apparently unknown.

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. 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 ( in this regard follows the example of their use in publications by Norm Johnson. Andrea Walker, Amanda Ladigo, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted with image capture and processing, and formatting of images and text. This study was supported by the National Science Foundation’s PEET program under Grant No. DEB 0328922 and associated REU supplement no DEB 1026618. Page last updated June, 2011.

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