Cataptygma Townes, 1970

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Cataptygma Townes, 1970: 129, 139-140. Type species: Cataptygma pectorale Townes, 1970.
Remarks
There are only three species, all from Chile, and as of 2012, no new information had been published on them since their original descriptions.

Cataptygma arcuatum Townes, 1970
Cataptygma balteatum Townes, 1970
Cataptygma pectorale Townes, 1970

Diagnosis and Relationships
Cataptygma differs from all other euryproctines by the combination of a blunt apical margin to the clypeus medially, presence of a well-developed median longitudinal ridge on the frons, and laterotergites on T2 and T3 pendulous (not separated from their respective median tergites by a crease (Townes 1970). (Townes 1970) also stated that the male clasper is large and the apex of the aedeagus is also large and characteristically shaped.
Description
Clypeus with ventral margin convex, the margin blunt medially, thin, sharp laterally; epistomal sulcus absent or nearly so, with clypeus essentially confluent with face; clypeus in profile flat or only weakly protruding ventrally. Frons with a median longitudinal ridge; inner eye margins parallel below, distinctly emarginate near antennal toruli. Malar space about half basal width of mandible; malar sulcus present. Mandible with dorsal and ventral teeth about equal in size. Maxillary palp a little shorter than height of head; female antenna about equal in length to body. Epomia distinct. Epicnemial carina dorsally ending some distance from anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus present. Pleural carina well-developed, at least in one species; propodeal carinae otherwise varying from completely absent to mostly present over posterior 0.5 (with complete petiolar area and median longitudinal carinae converging then vanishing anteriorly. Hind femur slender; posterior hind tibial spur long, narrow; tarsal claws apparently not pectinate. Fore wing areolet present; stigma relatively broad with Rs+2r arising from about midpoint. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 varying from shorter to much shorter than 1cu-a. T1 slender, gradually expanding posteriorly, straight to weakly arched in profile, without dorsal carinae; glymma absent. Laterotergites of T2 and T3 not separated by creases from median tergite. Ovipositor and sheath straight.

This description is based on Townes (1970) since I have only briefly examined the described species housed in the American Entomological Institute collection.

Distribution
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Map

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

Acknowledgements
This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a larger collaborative effort on the genera of Ctenopelmatinae. 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 thank David Wahl of the American Entomological Institute and Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection for extending loans of material used in 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. Heather Cummins, Caitlin Nessner, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted with 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 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 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.