Hadrodactylus Förster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Hadrodactylus Foerster, 1869: 199. Type Species: Ichneumon tiphae Geoffroy, 1785.
subsequent designation by Viereck (1914: 65), selection from one of two species first included by Woldstedt (1877).

Dizemon Foerster, 1869: 199. Type Species: Mesoleptus typhae Gravenhorst, 1829 [= Ichneumon tiphae Geoffroy, 1785]. Subsequent inclusion by Kriechbaumer (1891: 136), who inadvertently misspelled the genus name. Monobasic.

Zemiodes Foerster, 1869: 200. Type Species: Mesoleptus erythropus Kriechbaumer, 1891 [= Ichneumon tiphae Geoffroy, 1785]. Subsequent designation by Perkins (1962: 463), selected from one of two species first included by Kriechbaumer (1891: 140), who apparently considered erythropus (an unpublished manuscript name of Foerster’s) to be a synonym of tiphae. Yu et al. (2012) list erythropus as a synonym of _Hadrodactylus semirufus (Holmgren, 1858).

Narcopoea Foerster, 1869: 204. Type Species: Mesoleptus typhae Gravenhorst, 1829 [= Ichneumon tiphae Geoffroy, 1785]. Subsequent inclusion by Kriechbaumer (1891: 137). Monobasic. Genus synonymized by Perkins (1962: 438).

Meropaches Schmiedeknecht, 1913: 2705. Type Species: Meropaches bulsanensis Schmiedeknecht. Monobasic. Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965).

Viereck (1914) apparently ignored the publication by Kriechbaumer (1891) and designated different species as the type species for both Zemiodes and Dizemon based on inclusion of three and one species, respectively, by Davis (1897).

The species name typhae has been widely used and is apparently a lapsus for tiphae (Yu et al. 2012) and the authority for the species name has often been attributed to either Gravenhorst or Fourcroy.

Nearly 50 valid species were included by Yu et al. (2012). The genus is thus far recorded from the Holarctic and Oriental Regions. The Palaearctic species were revised by Kasparyan (2011).
Diagnosis and Relationships
Many of the species of Hadrodactylus can be recognized by the long, slender T1 without glymma, the bluntly margined clypeus, the presence of a fore wing areolet, and the large, curved apical tarsomere on the hind leg. However, there are some species that are placed in Hadrodactylus and which appear to be somewhat intermediate between Anisotacrus and the more obvious Hadrodactylus as defined by the derived state of the apical tarsomere on the hind leg.
Clypeus broad, with surface usually coarsely punctate to transversely rugose; ventral margin usually evenly convex, more rarely broadly truncate or nearly so medially and convex laterally, the margin always blunt; epistomal sulcus weak to distinct, usually broad and shallow, defined largely by angulation of clypeus; clypeus in profile varying from weakly protruding, nearly flat to strongly protruding. Inner eye margins parallel. Malar space often absent (Fig. 3), less commonly short but present, at most 0.5 times basal width of mandible; malar sulcus absent. Mandible (Fig. 3) tapering very gradually towards apex; dorsal tooth varying from nearly equal in size to distinctly shorter than ventral tooth; ventral margin distinctly carinate. Maxillary palp usually shorter than height of head, more rarely as long as height of head; antenna often longer than body, about equal in length to body or even slightly shorter in some species. Ocelli small, diameter of lateral ocellus less than distance from lateral ocellus to eye. Hypostomal carina meeting occipital carina above base of mandible, with distance of junction from mandible varying among species; occipital carina complete dorsally. Epomia present. Epicnemial carina usually (90%) reaching anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus present as a very distinct impression on anterior declivity, this part sometimes weakly sculptured, becoming more faint on disk and varying in extent on disk among species from absent or nearly so to broad, shallow, and converging in broad median depression posteriorly. Groove between propodeum and metapleuron absent to very weakly indicated, not u-shaped as in pionines; pleural carina present, often well-developed and complete, less commonly weak to absent or nearly so posteriorly; median longitudinal carinae varying among species: present only as low ridges posteriorly that are often lost among surrounding sculpture in some species, distinct posteriorly and partially effaced only anteriorly in other species, less commonly complete to anterior margin; forming flask-shaped median region, broad posteriorly and usually narrowly separated anteriorly; lateral longitudinal carina incomplete, usually extending from posterior margin to spiracle or nearly so, sometimes present only as short spurs off posterior margin; transverse carinae absent, though petiolar area sometimes nearly complete. Legs with apical margin of mid tibia usually only weakly expanded into a tooth, not similar to that of fore leg; apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia weakly developed to absent; posterior hind tibial spur about 0.3 times length of hind basitarsus, not particularly long; tarsal claws large, not pectinate, claws on hind leg sometimes asymmetrical, with one larger than the other; fifth tarsomere of hing leg often unusually elongate (relative to fourth), somewhat flattened, and curved (Fig. 1). Fore wing areolet present; stigma moderately broad, less commonly narrower as in Fig. 2, Rs+2r arising near basal 0.3-0.4. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 equal to or slightly shorter than 1cu-a. T1 long, slender (Figs 1, 2), parallel-sided or nearly so from base to spiracles, then broadening slightly towards apex; straight to weakly curved in profile; dorsal carinae usually absent or indistinct, sometimes sharp basad spiracles; basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment absent; dorsal-lateral carina often complete between spiracle and apex of T1; glymma absent. S1 extending at least to level of spiracle and rarely up to 0.75 times length of T1. T2 thyridium apparently absent (Fig 5), T2 sometimes with well-developed carina between spiracle and anterior margin as in Ctenopelmatini (Figs. 4, 5); laterotergites of T2 and T3 separated by creases from median tergite. Ovipositor and sheath (Figs 1, 2, 6) short; ovipositor with broad, dorsal, subapical notch. The species as a whole are generally long and slender.

The above description is modified from Townes (1970), and based in part on numerous specimens in the Texas A&M University collection.

1.Hadrodactylus habitus
2. Hadrodactylus habitus...
3. Hadrodactylu...
4.Hadrodactylus T2
5.Hadrodactylus T2
6. Hadrodactylus ovipositor...
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
Sawflies of the genus Dolerus are the usual hosts, according to Townes (1970).

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 thank David Wahl of the American Entomological Institute, Gavin Broad of The Natural History Museum, London, 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 access to material from the Swedish Malaise Trap Survey (trap 22, collection event 1638). 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, 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 0616851, 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 0616851, 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.