Rhorodes Aubert, 1970

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Rhorodes Aubert, 1970: 51-52. Type species: Rhorodes petiolator Aubert, 1970: 52-53. Monobasic and original designation.
Diagnosis and Relationships
This genus is known from a single species collected in Switzerland. This species is unknown to me. Aubert, 1970 placed it in what he called the tribe Notopygini, but also noted that in existing keys to the subfamily Ctenopelmatinae, Rhorodes just as easily runs to Rhorus as it does Notopygus because (as in Rhorus) the clypeus is not separated from the face (epistomal sulcus thus absent or apparently so).

Additionally, The mandibular teeth are equal in length, the ventral margin of the clypeus is evenly rounded (blunt), the antenna is shorter than the body, both epomia and notauli are present, the propodeum was described as completely carinate but the areola is confluent with the basal area, the type species has a fore wing areolet and the hind wing CU1 is much longer than 1cu-a, the tarsal claws are finely pectinate, T1 is exceptionally long and narrow, lacking both glymma and carinae, T2 is scarcely longer than wide and has a thyridium, and the ovipositor is curved dorsally and further directed almost vertically.

The combination of absence of an epistomal sulcus, absence of a glymma, presence of a thyridium, and the upwardly curving ovipositor serve to separate Rhorodes from all other members of the Ctenopelmatini. Since Aubert did not mention whether or not there was a longitudinal carina on T2 between the anterior margin and the spiracle, even it’s relegation to this tribe needs verification.

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

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. 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 also thank the following curators for extended loans of the material used for this study: David Wahl of the American Entomological Institute and Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection. 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. This study was supported by the National Science Foundation’s PEET program under Grant No. DEB 0328922 and associated REU supplement nos DEB 0723663, 0822676, 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, 0822676, 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.