Synomelix Foerster, 1868

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Synomelix Foerster, 1869: 206. Type species: Synomelix sieboldii Kriechbaumer. Subsequently included by Kriechbaumer, 1897.

Zemiophora Foerster, 1869: 203 was treated as a synonym of Synomelix by Townes (1945: 521). This synonymy was questioned by Perkins (1962: 464), but reaffirmed by Townes et al. (1965) and Townes (1970). Aubert (2000: 135) treated Zemophora as valid.

The type species is a junior, subjective synonym of Synomelix albipes (Gravenhorst, 1829).

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

Synomelix albipes (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Synomelix faciator Idar, 1983
Synomelix fasciata (Davis, 1897)
Synomelix longitarsis (Ashmead, 1902)
Synomelix obesa (Davis, 1897)
Synomelix perfida (Woldstedt, 1874)
Synomelix signatipes (Cresson, 1868)

Diagnosis and Relationships
Synomelix belongs to a group of Euryproctini with relatively short, broad T1 and relatively short first flagellomere (in both cases relative to the longer, narrowed features characteristic of genera such as Hadrodactylus). Within this group, Synomelix is characterized by the relatively narrow, sharply margined clypeus, the long, broad, sharply margined petiolar area of the propodeum, and the presence of a fore wing areolet. The differences in the clypeal features noted by Schmiedeknecht (1913: 2800) and Townes (1970: 129) in their keys separating Synomelix from Pantorhaestus are subtle.
Clypeus (Figs 2, 3) narrow, with surface finely punctate; ventral margin sharp, but not distinctly impressed, more or less truncate to weakly concave medially, sharply angled towards face laterally; epistomal sulcus narrow, very shallow and poorly indicated in females examined, distinct in the one male examined; clypeus in profile flat in females (Fig. 1) to weakly bulging in males. Inner eye margins parallel. Malar space (Fig. 2) well-developed, varying from 1.0 to slightly less than 0.5 times basal width of mandible; malar sulcus absent. Mandible (Fig. 3) tapering gradually from base to apex; dorsal tooth broader and about equal in length to ventral tooth; ventral margin distinctly carinate. Maxillary palp shorter than height of head; antenna (Fig. 4) equal to or slightly shorter than body, first flagellomere short relative to species in genera such as Mesoleptidea and Hadrodactylus. Ocelli small, diameter of lateral ocellus less than distance from lateral ocellus to eye; the one male examined has slightly larger ocelli than the females examined. Hypostomal carina meeting occipital carina distinctly above base of mandible; occipital carina complete dorsally. Epomia present, though sometimes weak. Epicnemial carina not or only rarely reaching anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus present usually as a deep, distinct impression on anterior declivity (the depression sometimes weakly sculptured), becoming distinctly weaker and shallow on disk, usually extending posteriorad level of tegula. Groove between propodeum and metapleuron absent to very weakly indicated, not u-shaped as in pionines; pleural carina present, usually strongly elevated; median longitudinal carinae very well-developed, forming flask-shaped median section with rugulose petiolar area (Fig. 5) broad and distinct, extending at least over posterior half of propodeum, petiolar area and areola sometimes delimited by transverse sculpture; lateral longitudinal carina weaker than median longitudinal carina, nearly always extending to spiracle from posterior margin but usually absent anteriorly, transverse carinae absent in three of four species examined. Legs with apical margin of mid tibia expanded into a tooth that is not quite as well-developed as that of fore leg; apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia weakly developed to absent; posterior hind tibial spur at least 0.5 times length of hind basitarsus, at least in females (Fig. 1); tarsal claws not pectinate (Fig. 8); fifth tarsomere of hing leg normal, not unusually elongate (relative to fourth) (Fig. 1). Fore wing (Fig. 6) with areolet present; stigma moderately broad, Rs+2r arising basad midpoint. Hind wing (Fig. 6) with first abscissa of CU1 nearly always longer than 1cu-a. T1 relatively short (Figs 7, 8), strongly expanding posteriorly; ventral margin straight in profile; dorsal carinae present and well-developed to about level of spiracle, absent posteriorly; basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment broad, shallow; dorsal-lateral carina complete between spiracle and apex of T1; glymma absent. S1 not extending to level of spiracle. Laterotergites of T2 and T3 separated by creases from median tergite. Ovipositor and sheath (Figs 1, 9) straight, ovipositor with distinct dorsal, subapical notch.

The above description is modified from Townes (1970), and based four females and one male in the Texas A&M University collection.

1.Synomelix habitus
2.Synomelix face
3.Synomelix clypeus
4.Synomelix antenna
5. Synomelix propodeum...
6.Synomelix wings
7. Synomelix T1 d...
8.Synomelix T1 lateral
9.Synomelix 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 April, 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 of the American Entomological Institute and Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection for extended loans of material used in this study. We also thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study and Dave Karlsson for access to material from the Swedish Malaise Trap Survey (trap 50, collection event 1222). 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, Amy James, Karl Roeder, Danielle Restuccia, 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, 0822676, 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 DEB 0723663, 0822676, 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.