The Wharton Lab

Bremiella Dalla Torre, 1901: 313. New name for Bremia Kriechbaumer, 1890: 209. Not Bremia Rondani, 1860: 289 [1861 vide Townes, but published in 1860 according to Foote in A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico (1965), where a fair amount of info is given on Rondani dates] nor Bremia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863. Type species: Bremia pulchella Kriechbaumer, 1890. Monobasic.

Agasthenopoda Schmiedeknecht, 1912: 2519. Type species: Agasthenopoda australis Schmiedeknecht. By subsequent inclusion by Schmiedeknecht (1913). Synonymized by Oehlke and Townes (1969).

Included in Metopiinae by Townes (1971: 89-114), with comment that taxonomic placement of the genus was uncertain. Included in Ctenopelmatinae: Perilissini by Aubert (2000: 57), but with no explanation for this placement nor any indication that this is a new placement. However, I have not been able to find any earlier reference to this placement.

There is a single, relatively widespread but uncommon species from the Western Palaearctic. Hosts are unknown.

The placement in Perilissini by Aubert (2000: 57) is curious, especially given the very metopiine-like, elevated extension of the face between the antennae. Nevertheless, the more posteriorly displaced position of the glymma is similar to that of many perilissines, though the glymma in Bremiella does not appear to be as deep. It would be useful to examine the shape of the ovipositor, but this was not visible in the specimen examined. The partial loss of the occipital carina and relative positions (ventrally) of the occipital and hypostomal carinae are similar to conditions found in some Perilissini but some metopiines are also characterized by partial loss of the occipital carina.

Head large relative to body (Fig. 1). Clypeus (Figs 2-5) with ventral margin thick, bluntly rounded, and weakly bilobed (Fig. 4); clypeus in profile not protruding; epistomal sulcus indistinct. Malar space long, about equal to basal width of mandible. Mandible with ventral tooth distinctly longer than dorsal tooth (Fig. 4). Face dorsally extending as an elevated triangle between antennae (Figs 3, 5)) as in most Metopiinae; frons with associated elevated carina medially (Fig. 5). Ocelli small (Fig. 5), lateral ocellus distinctly shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palp shorter than head height. Occipital carina joining base of mandible separately from hypostomal carina; occipital carina absent mid-dorsally. Epomia absent. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina extending to or nearly to (Fig. 6) anterior margin of mesopleuron. Pleural carina complete, stronger dorsoanteriorly; propodeum (Figs 7-8) with complete posterior transverse carina; anterior transverse carina nearly absent, reduced to short spurs directed laterally from median longitudinal carinae; median longitudinal carinae absent posteriorad posterior transverse carina, otherwise distinct and nearly parallel-sided (slightly more widely separated medially); lateral longitudinal carina present but weak and incomplete. Legs with posterior hind tibial spur relatively long (Fig. 1). Fore wing with 5-sided areolet; stigma (Fig. 1) with Rs+2r arising at or near midpoint. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 about as long as 1cu-a. T1 (Figs 8-10) narrow, nearly parallel-sided basally, distinctly broadening posteriorly; dorsal carinae low, barely visible except basally, but extending rather indistinctly well past level of spiracles (Fig. 10); glymma not basal, relatively shallow (Figs 8, 9). Laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor and sheath (Fig. 11) very short.

This description is based on material borrowed from the American Entomological Institute and is somewhat modified from that given by Townes (1971: 114).

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 for extended loans of the material used for this study as well as 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, Andrea Walker, Patricia Mullins, Caitlin Nessner, Mika Cameron, Karl Roeder, Danielle Restuccia, 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 0723663, 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 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.