Lamachus Förster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Lamachus Foerster, 1869: 206. Type species: Tryphon lophyrorum Hartig, 1838. Subsequent designation by Viereck (1914: 81) selected from among several species first included by Thomson (1892: 1877).

Zaphthora Foerster, 1869: 206. Type species: Tryphon eques Hartig. Subsequent designation by Townes et al. (1965). Monobasic. Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965).

Adexioma Foerster, 1869: 206. Type species: Adexioma angularia Davis, 1897. Subsequent inclusion by Davis (1897: 284). Monobasic. Synonymized by Townes (1945: 519).

Torocampus Schmiedeknecht, 1913: 2797. Type species: Tryphon eques Hartig. Subsequent inclusion by Schmiedeknecht, 1914. Synonymized by Townes (1945: 519).

Bathyglyptus Schmiedeknecht, 1913: 2802. Type species: Bathyglyptus australis Schmiedeknecht. Subsequent inclusion by Schmiedeknecht, 1914. Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965).

Remarks
24 valid species were included by Yu et al. (2012). This is a holarctic genus with species that primarily parasitize members of the Diprionidae.
Diagnosis and Relationships
Lamachus is recognized by the relatively narrow clypeus with sharp ventral margin, presence of a fore wing areolet, and relatively short, broad mandibles with the dorsal tooth wider than the ventral tooth. The species are similar in some ways to those of Himerta, but species of Himerta lack the fore wing areolet and the hind wing CU! is usually (though not always) shorter than in Lamachus.
Description
Clypeus (Figs 3, 4) relatively narrow, usually flat to weakly bulging; ventral margin sharp throughout, truncate to weakly concave medially, with lateral margins distinctly angled dorsally; epistomal sulcus sharply setting off face from clypeus. Malar space shorter than half basal width of mandible, very short in some individuals. Mandible (Fig. 3) short, curved; narrowing from base to apex; dorsal tooth wider and usually slightly longer than ventral tooth; ventral margin carinate. Inner eye margins parallel to weakly converging. Ocelli with maximum diameter of lateral ocellus often about equal to distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palp shorter than height of head. Antennae shorter than or about equal to length of body (Fig. 1); first flagellomere varying from about 1.7-2.0 times longer than second. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia absent in at least one species, present in others (or with epomia-like sculpture). Dorsal end of epicnemial carina usually not extending to anterior margin of mesopleuron, weakly to very distinctly separated from anterior margin; mesopleuron varying from coarsely to finely punctate; mat. Notaulus varying from absent or nearly so to very short but distinctly impressed on dorsal part of anterior declivity. Pleural carina usually distinct throughout; propodeal carinae variously reduced: lateral longitudinal carina usually weak, sometimes indistinct; petiolar area usually broad, hemispherical, and completely delimited by tall carinae, more rarely with carinae absent or very weak medially; median carinae absent or weak and irregular. Legs with apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia poorly developed, indistinct; hind tibial spurs long, slender (Figs 2, 6, 7), longest spur usually nearly as long as half length of very long hind basitarsus; all tarsal claws apparently simple, not pectinate. Fore wing areolet present; stigma not exceptionally broad, with Rs+2r arising from or near midpoint. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 slightly to distinctly longer than 1cu-a. T1 gradually widening posteriorly; dorsal carinae usually sharp and well-developed around margins of deep, wide basal depression of dorsal tendon attachment, rounded posteriorly, usually weakly extending to or posterior to level of spiracle; dorsal-lateral carina sharp and distinct from spiracle to base, and from spiracle to posterior margin of T1 in three of four species (rounded posteriorly in contortionis); glymma deep. S1 not extending to level of spiracle. T2 thyridium present; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor (Figs 1, 8) short, more or less straight, with deep, broad subapical, dorsal notch; ovipositor sheath shorter than hind tibial spur. Apex of female metasoma as in Fig. 8; somewhat compressed in females of two of three species examined in which females were available.

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

16109_mximage
1. Lamachus contortionis habitus...
5206_mximage
2.Lamachus
16113_mximage
3. Lamachus contortionis face, clypeus, m...
16114_mximage
4. Lamachus eques face and cly...
16110_mximage
5. Lamachus contor...
16115_mximage
6. Lamach...
16111_mximage
7. Lamachus contortionis metasoma...
5019_mximage
8. Lamachus ovipositor...
 
Distribution
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Map

There are no specimens currently determined for this OTU, or those specimens determined for this OTU are not yet mappable.

Acknowledgements
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, Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection and Gavin Broad of The Natural History Museum, London 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, and Dmitry Kasparyan for helpful discussions on generic limits. 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, Caitlin Nessner, Karl Roeder, Danielle Restuccia, Mika Cameron, 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 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.