Neurogenia appendiculata (Tosquinet, 1896)

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Mesoleius appendiculatus Tosquinet, 1896: 352
Neurogenia appendiculata: Seyrig (1935: 98); Benoit (1955: 69-71).
Neurogenia testacea (Szepligeti, 1908) was treated as a synonym of N. appendiculata by Seyrig (1935), but Benoit (1955) examined the primary types and considered them as distinct species. According to Benoit, Seyrig did not examine the types of these species and instead used a specimen from Kenya that he misidentified as testacea to support his synonymy. Benoit re-examined the specimen from Kenya and placed it in appendiculata, thus considerably expanding the range of appendiculata. Benoit also recorded additional material from intermediate localities. Benoit separated testacea and appendiculata solely on the basis of propodeal characteristics.

Prionopoda testaceioides Morley, 1926 was treated as a synonym of N. appendiculata by Benoit (1955), but later placed in Perilissus by Townes and Townes (1973).

Diagnosis and Relationships
In his key to species, Benoit (1955) separated N. appendiculata from N. ocellaris and N. testacea on the basis of the propodeal carination, with the areola complete and well-delineated in N. appendiculata but with the anterior portion absent or apparently so in the other two species. More work is needed to determine the extent of intraspecific variation in this character. Benoit (1955) noted that the malar space is absent in the male but present (though small) in the female, and that the ocelli are larger in the male than the female.
This was treated as a widespread species by Benoit (1955). The male holotype was collected from Delagoa Bay, South Africa (Repository: MNHB).
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology and Behavior
Biology 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, and as part of a study of this genus prepared by Heather Hendrickson and Bob Wharton. The work is based on specimens in the Texas A&M University collection as well as material borrowed from China, MRAC, CNC, BMNH, and AEI. We are particularly grateful to Xue-xin Chen, David Wahl, Andy Bennett, Gavin Broad, and Eliane De Coninck for loan of specimens. This work would also 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 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. Heather Hendrickson and Mika Cameron graciously assisted with literature retrieval. Page last updated December, 2014.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplements DEB 0723663 and number 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.