Lagarotis Foerster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Lagarotis Foerster, 1869: 205. Type species: Ichneumon semicaligatus Gravenhorst, 1820. Subsequent designation by Viereck (1914: 81) selected from among several species originally included by Thomson (1892: 1881).

Daspletis Foerster, 1869: 205. Type species: Ichneumon debitor Thunberg, 1822. Subsequent designation by Townes et al. (1965: 254). Monobasic. Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965: 254).

Oneista Foerster, 1869: 207. Type species: Oneista bohemani Kriechbaumer, 1892 [= a junior subjective synonym of Mesoleius ustulata Holmgren, 1857]. Subsequent inclusion by Kriechbaumer, 1892. Monobasic. Synonymized by Roman (1909).

Nythophona Foerster, 1869: 207. Type species: Mesoleius ustulatus Holmgren, 1857. Subsequent designation by Townes et al. (1965: 254). Monobasic. Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965: 254).

Dysantes Foerster, 1869: 207. Type species: Ichneumon debitor Thunberg, 1822. Designated by Perkins (1962: 419). Synonymized by Perkins (1962: 419).

Lagarotus Thomson, 1892: 1881. Unjustified emendation.

The name Oneista should likely be spelled Oneiesta since Foerster used a diacritical mark over the i in his original description.

The following valid species were included by Yu et al. (2012):

Lagarotis debitor (Thunberg, 1822)
Lagarotis didyma (Thomson, 1895)
Lagarotis nivalis (Roman, 1939)
Lagarotis pubescens (Holmgren, 1857)
Lagarotis semicaligata (Gravenhorst, 1820)
Lagarotis simulator Heinrich, 1952
Lagarotis subalpina Heinrich, 1952
Lagarotis ustulata (Holmgren, 1857)

Diagnosis and Relationships
Lagarotis is defined largely on the basis of the relatively flattened, sparsely punctate clypeus in combination with a heavily sculptured mesopleuron. The fore wing areolet is often poorly developed, and those specimens in which it is absent would be difficult to separate from some Mesoleius.
Clypeus (Fig. 2) short and relatively wide, weakly bulging subapically (nearly flat), with rounded transverse ridge; ventral margin sharp throughout, slightly impressed medially and distinctly visible throughout; ventral margin truncate medially, with lateral margins distinctly angled dorsally; epistomal sulcus distinct. Malar space 0.5-1.0 times basal width of mandible in female, shorter than half basal width of mandible in male. Mandible (Fig. 2) long, curved, gradually narrowing from base to apex; ventral tooth distinctly longer than dorsal tooth. Inner eye margins parallel. Ocelli small, with maximum diameter of lateral ocellus a little shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Female (Fig. 1) and male antennae as long as or slightly longer than body; first flagellomere long and slender. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia absent. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina weakening as it approaches anterior margin of mesopleuron, usually not extending to anterior margin (Fig. 3); entire mesopleuron except for speculum coarsely sculptured (Fig. 3): wrinkled to rugulose-mat. Notaulus absent to short and weakly impressed. Pleural carina (Fig. 4) usually distinct dorsoanteriorly, weak to absent ventroposteriorly; propodeal carinae usually weak: lateral longitudinal carina often poorly developed (Fig. 4); petiolar area completely to largely delimited by carinae; median longitudinal carinae extending irregularly and narrowly spaced from base of petiolar area to anterior margin, sometimes obscured by ruguose background sculpture of propodeum. Legs with apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia well developed, dense, though sometimes short; hind tibial spurs long, slender (Fig. 1), longest spur less than half length of long hind basitarsus in the material examined; all tarsal claws apparently simple, not pectinate. Fore wing (Fig. 5) with areolet usually present, usually small, sometimes with one side replaced by an unpigmented vein or bulla; stigma not exceptionally broad, with Rs+2r arising a little basad midpoint. Hind wing (Fig. 5) with first abscissa of CU1 longer than 1cu-a. T1 (Figs 6-7) relatively long and narrow, gradually widening posteriorly; dorsal carinae usually extending as narrowly spaced ridges posteriorad level of spiracle, often reaching about half distance between spiracle and posterior margin; basal depression of dorsal tendon attachment deep, wide; dorsal-lateral carina sharp and distinct from spiracle to posterior margin of T1, often poorly indicated in immediate vicinity of spiracle; glymma deep, broad basally, narrowing posteriorly. S1 not extending to level of spiracle. T2 thyridium present; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor short, with subapical, dorsal notch.

This description is modified from Townes (1970) and based largely on one species in the Texas A&M University Collection.

1. Lagarotis debitor habitus...
2. Lagarotis debitor clypeus and m...
3. Lagarotis debitor ...
4. Lagarotis debitor propodeum late...
5. Lagarotis debitor wings...
6. Lagarotis debitor T1 lateral...
7. Lagarotis debito...
Known only from the Old World; Eastern and Western Palaearctic.
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
Host records include three families of sawflies and older records therefore may need to be verified.

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 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 thank David Wahl of the American Entomological Institute and Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection for extended loans of the material used for this study. We also thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study, Dave Karlsson for access to material from the Swedish Malaise Trap Survey (trap 22, collection event 1643), and Dmitry Kasparyan for helpful discussions on generic limits. 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 Cummins, Caitlin Nessner, Karl Roeder, 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.