The Wharton Lab

Dentimachus Heinrich, 1949: 86. Type species: Dentimachus morio Heinrich, 1949. Original designation.

This genus is Palearctic (both Eastern and Western) and Oriental, the biology is unknown, and the following species were listed as valid in Yu et al. (2012):

Dentimachus glabrus Kaur, 1989
Dentimachus guanshanicus Sun and Sheng, 2011
Dentimachus henanicus Sheng, 2009
Dentimachus himalaensis Kaur, 1989
Dentimachus politus (Habermehl, 1922) [= a senior subjective synonym of morio Heinrich]
Dentimachus nipponensis Kaur, 1989
Dentimachus pallidimaculatus Kaur, 1989
Dentimachus rufiabdominalis Kaur, 1989

A revision of Dentimachus was provided by Kaur (1989), with emphasis on the Oriental fauna.

Dentimachus is defined largely by the absence of a portion of the dorsal-lateral carina between the spiracle and the base of T1 and a mandible with the ventral tooth distinctly longer than the dorsal tooth. Its species are further characterized by the presence of a fore wing areolet, a poorly developed notaulus, a long posterior hind tibial spur (at least half length of hind basistarsus), and a relatively wide clypeus with an impressed margin medially. Heinrich (1949) separated Nemesoleius from Dentimachus largely on the basis of propodeal carination, which is reduced in the type species of Dentimachus, largely to a petiolar area which is more nearly trapezoidal than the hemispherical petiolar area found in most mesoleiines. Nemesoleius was first synonymized with Dentimachus by Townes (1975), then subsequently moved to Alcochera.

In the hind wing, the first abscissa of CU1 is equal in length to 1cu-a or either a little shorter or a little longer. This, together with the relatively large body size of the type species and the poorly developed notaulus probably influenced Townes (1957) to suggest a similarity to Perispuda.

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 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, Karl Roeder, and Caitlin Nessner 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.