Neostroblia Heinrich, 1953

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Neostroblia Heinrich, 1953: 211. Type species: Mesoleius ruficollis var. pseudolituratus Strobl. Original designation.
There were 4 valid species as of 2012: _Neostroblia deficiens (Morley, 1913), Neostroblia pseudoliturata (Strobl, 1903), and Neostroblia ruficollis (Holmgren, 1857) from the Palaearctic Region and Neostroblia incessans (Davis, 1898), from boreal North America. Kasparyan and Khalaim (2007: 546) treated pseudoliturata and ruficollis as separately valid species. The biology of these species is apparently unknown.
Diagnosis and Relationships
Neostroblia is recognized primarily by the relatively small clypeus in combination with the lack of a fore wing areolet, long hind wing first abscissa of CU1, and poorly developed T1 dorsal carinae. The species of Scopesis have a wider clypeus and the species of Alexeter tend to have a more sharply impressed notaulus and longer, narrower T1. In his redescription and key, Townes (1970: 106, 119) states that the notaulus is lacking or (for Scopesis + Neostroblia) indistinct. In the six available specimens of Neostroblia, including males and female of Neostroblia incessans determined by Townes, the notaulus is present and distinct, though neither sharply impressed nor as long as in Alexeter.
Frons without median horn or elevated carina. Clypeus narrow, bulging in profile; ventral margin sharp throughout, median portion deeply impressed and occasionally difficult to see because subapical swelling extends ventrally to partially overlap the margin; ventral margin concave to narrowly v-shaped medially, giving overall bilobed appearance, with lateral margins either evenly rountded or distinctly angled dorsally; epistomal sulcus shallow, broad. Malar space longer than basal width of mandible in females, equal to or slightly shorter than basal width of mandible in males. Mandible short, curved, either gradually narrowing from base to apex or with apical 0.4 parallel-sided to slightly broadening; ventral tooth equal to or more commonly slightly smaller than dorsal tooth; ventral margin carinate. Inner eye margins parallel. Female ocelli small, with maximum diameter of lateral ocellus distinctly shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palps shorter than height of head; female antenna about as long as body, male antenna longer; first flagellomere short, second flagellomere very short (Fig. 1). Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia absent. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina extending to anterior margin of mesopleuron; mesopleuron ventrally mat, distinctly punctate in females, finely so in males. Notaulus weakly impressed on anterior declivity, weak to absent on disk. Pleural carina distinct throughout; propodeal carinae typical of many mesoleiines: petiolar area broad, hemispherical, delimited by tall carinae; median longitudinal carinae roughly narrowly parallel-sided and extending to anterior margin from apical rim of petiolar area; lateral longitudinal carina complete or nearly so, usually weaker than pleural carina; other carinae absent. Legs with apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia short but well developed, dense; hind tibial spurs long, slender (Fig. 1), longest spur about half length of hind basitarsus; all tarsal claws simple, not pectinate. Fore wing areolet present; stigma somewhat narrowed, with Rs+2r arising from (females) or slight basad (males) midpoint. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 distinctly longer than 1cu-a (Fig. 1). T1 (Fig. 1) short and broader than in Alexeter, distinctly widening posteriorly in females, more nearly parallel-sided in males; dorsal carinae usually present only near base, not extending to level of spiracle, often confined to margins of deep basal depression of dorsal tendon attachment; dorsal-lateral carina sharp and distinct from spiracle to posterior margin of T1; glymma deep, broad basally, narrowing posteriorly. S1 not extending to level of spiracle, 0.3-0.4 times length of T1. T2 thyridium present; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor (Fig. 2) short, with deep, broad subapical, dorsal notch; ovipositor sheath shorter than hind tibial spur. Apex of female metasoma as in Fig. 2.

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

1. Neostroblia incessans ha...
2. Neostroblia incessans ov...
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 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 and Dave Karlsson for sending valuable material from the Swedish Malaise Trap Survey (trap 3, collection event 708). 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, Andrea Walker, Patricia Mullins, Caitlin Nessner, Mika Cameron, Karl Roeder, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted 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 #s 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.