Scopesis Förster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Scopesis Foerster, 1869: 209. Type species: Mesoleius guttiger Holmgren, 1857. Subsequent designation by Viereck, 1914: 132, selected from among several species first included by Thomson (1894), though Viereck cites the Dalla Torre (1901) catalog.

Scoparches Foerster, 1869: 211. Type species: Tryphon bicolor Gravenhorst, 1829. Subsequent designation by Perkins (1962: 451). Monobasic. Synonymized by Perkins (1962: 451).

Scopesus Thomson, 1894: 2028. Unjustified emendation.

Hyposyntactus Ashmead, 1902: 217. Type species: Hyposyntactus flavifrons Ashmead, 1902 [= a junior subjective synonym of Ichneumon gesticulator Thunberg, 1822]. Monobasic.

The synonymy of Hyposyntactus with Scopesis appears to have been first proposed by Townes (1970: 120). This is not entirely clear, however, since Townes (1970: 120) also states that the status of gesticulator tarda Provancher, which he lists as a synonym of Hyposyntactus flavifrons, is not new.

Remarks
The following valid species were included in this Holarctic genus by Yu et al. (2012):

Scopesis alpivagans Heinrich, 1949
Scopesis areolaris (Pfankuch, 1921)
Scopesis bicolor (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Scopesis depressa (Thomson, 1894)
Scopesis flavopicta (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Scopesis fraterna (Holmgren, 1857)
Scopesis frontator (Thunberg, 1822)
Scopesis gesticulator (Thunberg, 1822)
Scopesis guttiger (Holmgren, 1857)
Scopesis immatura (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Scopesis macropus (Thomson, 1894)
Scopesis obscura (Holmgren, 1857)
Scopesis polita (Holmgren, 1857)
Scopesis rubrotincta (Schmiedeknecht, 1914)
Scopesis rufonotata (Holmgren, 1876)
Scopesis sachalinensis (Uchida, 1930)
Scopesis tarsatae Horstmann, 2006
Scopesis tegularis (Thomson, 1894)
Scopesis ulbrichti (Teunissen, 1953)

Diagnosis and Relationships
Some of the species of Scopesis, such as S. rufonotata (Holmgren) are similar in overall appearance to those of Neostroblia, but have a wider clypeus. The clypeal character seems adequate for separating Scopesis from the otherwise similar Neostroblia. It is more challenging to separate those species of Alexeter that lack a fore wing areolet from Scopesis since the notaulus and relative size of T1, commonly used to separate the two, are somewhat variable in both and character states overlap to some extent. In general, the notaulus is weaker in Scopesis and T1 is a little shorter and broader in females. Townes (1970: 106) noted that the setae on the female subgenital plate erect or slanted forward in Scopesis but slanted backwards (posteriorly) in Neostroblia and Alexeter.
Description
Clypeus (Figs 2, 3) wide, strongly bulging subapically, with rounded transverse ridge; ventral margin sharp throughout, deeply impressed medially and occasionally difficult to see medially because of ventrally protruding median lobe of transverse ridge; ventral margin concave medially, giving bilobed appearance, with lateral margins distinctly angled dorsally; epistomal sulcus shallow but distinct. Malar space usually shorter than basal width of mandible, most commonly 0.5 times basal width of mandible or less (Fig. 2). Mandible (Fig. 3) long, curved, gradually narrowing from base to about midpoint, then parallel-sided or slightly broadened distally; ventral tooth varying from slightly to distinctly longer than dorsal tooth. Inner eye margins parallel to weakly converging ventrally. Female ocelli small, with maximum diameter of lateral ocellus usually distinctly shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Female and male antennae equal to or longer than body; first flagellomere long and slender, nearly twice longer than second (Figs 1, 4). Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia nearly always absent. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina extending to anterior margin of mesopleuron or nearly so (Fig. 5), less commonly distinctly separated from anterior margin; mesopleuron mat, with or without fine punctation. Notaulus varying from nearly absent to distinctly impressed on anterior declivity, weak to absent on disk. Pleural carina usually well-developed (Figs 6, 7), sometimes weak, especially ventroposteriorly; propodeal carinae varying from greatly reduced, nearly absent to typical mesoleiine form (Fig. 6) with sharply defined lateral longitudinal carina, hemispherical petiolar area, and parallel-sided or anteriorly converging median longitudinal carinae extending to anterior margin from petiolar area; distinct areola sometimes separated by transverse carina from basal median area. Legs with apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia short but fairly well developed, moderately dense; hind tibial spurs long, slender (Fig. 10), longest spur about as long as half length of hind basitarsus; all tarsal claws simple, not pectinate. Fore wing (Figs 1, 8) with areolet absent; stigma relatively narrow, with Rs+2r arising from or near midpoint. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 distinctly longer than 1cu-a. T1 (Figs 7, 11) gradually widening posteriorly; dorsal carinae usually confined to margins of deep basal depression of dorsal tendon attachment; dorsal-lateral carina usually sharp and distinct from spiracle to posterior margin of T1, sometimes poorly indicated near spiracle; glymma very deep, broad basally, narrowing posteriorly. S1 extending to level of spiracle or nearly so. Laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor (Figs 12, 13) short, weakly decurved, with deep, broad subapical, dorsal notch; ovipositor sheath shorter than hind tibial spur. Hypopygium short, with short to very short erect or somewhat anteriorly directed setae. Apex of female metasoma as in Figs 12, 13.

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

10393_mximage
1. Scopesis gesticulator tarda ha...
10391_mximage
2. Scopesis gesticulator tarda fac...
10392_mximage
3. Scopesis gesticulator tarda cly...
10394_mximage
4. Scopes...
10395_mximage
5. Scopesis gesticulat...
10397_mximage
6. Scopesis gesticulator tarda...
10396_mximage
7. Scopesis gesticulator tarda propodeum ...
10400_mximage
8. Scopesis gesticulator tarda win...
10401_mximage
9. Scopesis...
10402_mximage
10. Scopesis gesticulator tarda hin...
10398_mximage
11. Scopesis...
10399_mximage
12. Scopesis gesticulator tarda apex o...
5034_mximage
13. Scopesis ovipositor and ...
 
Distribution
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
Several genera of Tenthredinidae have been recorded as hosts for Scopesis.
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 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 sending valuable material from the Swedish Malaise Trap Survey (trap 22, collection event 1638), Al Gillogly for material from Idaho, and Dmitry Kasparyan for useful 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, 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.