The Wharton Lab

Apholium Townes, 1970: 113. Type species: Apholium leptobasis Townes, 1970. Monobasic and original designation.

See Barytarbes page for additional information. Aubert (2000) treated Apholium as a synonym of Barytarbes.

Prior to the synonymy with Barytarbes, only two species were included in Apholium: Apholium lalashanense Kusigemati, 1990 and Apholium leptobasis Townes, 1970.

T1 looks like some of the euryproctines: long and slender, gradually widening apically, with apex about 3x wider than narrowest part near base and without a glymma. The absence of a glymma is unusual in Mesoleiini, but Townes (1970: 118) notes that some Perispuda also lack a glymma.

Frons without median horn or elevated carina. Clypeus short and wide, nearly flat in profile, ventral margin strongly impressed and sharp, bluntly rounded immediately above the impressed margin; epistomal sulcus shallow but distinct. Malar space very short, less than basal width of mandible in male, absent or nearly so in female. Mandible moderately long, ventral tooth longer than dorsal tooth. Ocelli small, lateral ocellus much shorter than distance between ocellus and eye in female, larger in male, with diameter of lateral ocellus about equal to distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palp shorter than head height; first flagellomere very long, without tyloid. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina distinctly separated from anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus short, shallow. Shallow, v-shaped notch present between anterior end of propodeum (where lateral longitudinal carina would be if present) and adjacent part of metanotum in lateral view, distinct u-shaped notch not present; pleural carina incomplete, especially posteriorly, better developed in male than female; propodeal carinae poorly developed, absent or nearly so in female, in male lateral longitudinal and anterior transverse carinae absent, median longitudinal carinae weak but present anteriorly, posterior transverse carina weak but present medially. Apical margin of mid tibia rounded, not or only very weakly expanded into a small tooth; comb on hind tibia well developed; posterior hind tibial spur long, cylindrical, about half length of hind basitarsus; all tarsal claws simple, never pectinate. Fore wing areolet present. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 approximately equal in length to 1cu-a, or slightly longer. T1 long and relatively slender, gradually widening posteriorly, a little more abruptly so in female; dorsal carinae absent; without basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment; dorsal-lateral carina sharp and distinct from spiracle to apex of T1 in male, less distinct in female; glymma absent. T2 lateral carina absent; T2 thyridium present; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor straight, relatively broad at base, with broad subapical notch terminating more abruptly distally than basally; ovipositor sheath short.

The above description and figures are based on a paratype male and paratype female borrowed from the American Entomological Institute.

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a larger collaborative effort on the genera of Ctenopelmatinae. Page last updated May, 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 are also grateful to 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. 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. Andrea Walker, Caitlin Nessner, 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 0522836, 0616851, 0723663, 0822676, 0923134, and 1026618.

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 0522836, 0616851, 0723663, 0822676, 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.