Arbelus Townes, 1970

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Arbelus Townes, 1970: 122. Type species: Mesoleius idahoensis Davis, 1897. Original designation.
The following valid species were included by Yu et al. (2012):

Arbelus athaliaeperda (Curtis, 1860)
Arbelus idahoensis (Davis, 1897)
Arbelus intimatus (Davis, 1897)
Arbelus nuperus (Davis, 1897)
Arbelus sanguinipes (Thomson, 1894)

Diagnosis and Relationships
Arbelus is characterized by the absence of a fore wing areolet in combination with a fairly wide but very short clypeus Townes, 1970. It otherwise falls within the group containing Mesoleius and Campodorus, with the apex of the clypeus apparently more like those species of Campodorus in which the apical margin is not bilobed. The propodeum is fairly typical of these mesoleiines, with well-defined petiolar area, distinct lateral longitudinal carinae, and nearly parallel-sided median longitudinal carinae extending from the petiolar area to the anterior margin. The notaulus is well-developed and the dorsal carinae of T1 are distinct at least to the level of the spiracle. Additionally, Townes, 1970 notes that the subapical notch of the ovipositor is broad and rounded, giving the apical part of the upper valve an evenly convex profile (as in Fig. 1) rather than the more abrupt anterior shelf (Figs 2, 3) common to most other mesoleiines. I have not examined Arbelus: the above information is taken directly from the key and original description in Townes, 1970.
1. Arbelus-like ovipositor...
2. Mesoleius_ ovipositor...
3. Campodorus ovipositor...
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 also thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study. 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, and Karl Roeder graciously assisted us with formatting. 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.