Hypamblys Foerster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Hypamblys Foerster, 1869: 212. Type species: Mesoleius transfuga Holmgren, 1857. Subsequent designation by Viereck (1914: 73) from among several species originally included by Thomson (1894: 2008).

Apystus Foerster, 1869: 212. Type species: Tryphon albopictus Gravenhorst, 1829. Designated by Perkins (1962: 406). Synonymized by Perkins (1962: 406).

Lathrophagus Foerster, 1869. Type species: Mesoleius buccatus Holmgren, 1857. Designated by Perkins (1962: 435). Synonymized by Perkins (1962: 435).

The above synonymy follows Townes (1970: 131). Lathrophagus has a somewhat convoluted history: it was first synonymized under Hypamblys by Perkins (1962), and this treatment is followed by Townes (1970: 136). Aubert (2000) lists it as a synonym of both Synodites and Hypamblys. Yu et al. (2012) includes the type species in Synodites, citing an inventory of a Dutch natural area by Zwakhals et al. (1996). Since the list of included species cited on this page is from Yu et al. (2012), it includes breviusculus, the current valid name for the type species of Lathrophagus.

The following valid species were included in by Yu et al. (2012), except for breviusculus, the current valid name for the type species of Lathrophagus. It is included here by me but placed in Synodites by Yu et al. (2012).

Hypamblys albicruris (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Hypamblys albifacies (Provancher, 1888)
Hypamblys albopictus (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Hypamblys auberti Kasparyan, 2007
Hypamblys breviusculus (Fronscolombe, 1849)
Hypamblys carmenae Gauld, 1997
Hypamblys conformis (Walley, 1993)
Hypamblys dejongi Teunissen, 1953
Hypamblys fluminensis (Strobl, 1901)
Hypamblys glaciator Aubert, 2007
Hypamblys innotator Aubert, 1998
Hypamblys muli Kasparyan, 2007
Hypamblys romani Habermehl, 1925
Hypamblys selkup Kasparyan, 2007
_Hypamblys variabalis Teunissen, 1953

Hypamblys is largely Holarctic, with one species described from Costa Rica.

Diagnosis and Relationships
Hypamblys is presently characterized largely on the basis of the absence of a fore wing areolet, a clypeal margin that is blunt throughout, and presence of a large, dorsally delimited petiolar area on the propodeum. The species are short and somewhat stocky, unlike the long, slender species of Mesoleptidea that often have the fore wing areolet absent. In habitus and several specific features, they resemble species in Synomelix, Pantorhaestes, Synodites, and Syndipnus. Synidpnus often has the clypeal margin sharper, at least laterally, but several authors have noted that differentiating Syndipnus and Hypamblys is problematic. According to Townes (1970: 129), metasomal T2 and T3 are partially fused in Syndipnus relative to other members of the Euryproctini.

There remains some doubt about the placement of several species in Synodites vs. Syndipnus and Hypamblys. Part of the issue is the placement of species in which the apical margin of the clypeus is neither entirely blunt nor entirely sharp. The second issue is the utility of the metasomal character used by Townes (1970: 129) to separate Syndipnus (with T2+3 fusion) from Hypamblys and other genera that have T2 and T3 clearly separate and overlapping. Aubert (2000) specifically states that the fused tergite character used by Townes does not work for some of the European species and Aubert says that Syndipnus is better characterized by the presence of warts on T2. Aubert also notes that Syndipnus is very difficult to separate from Hypamblys.

Clypeus (Fig. 3) with surface punctate; usually with narrow, transverse ridge in middle; ventral margin blunt, generally evenly convex; epistomal sulcus narrow, usually distinct, sometimes sharply impressed; clypeus in profile flat to weakly bulging. Inner eye margins parallel or nearly so. Malar space (Fig. 3) short but distinct, slightly less than 0.5 times basal width of mandible; malar sulcus absent. Mandible (Fig. 3) tapering gradually from base to apex; dorsal tooth as broad or broader than ventral tooth and the two teeth about equal in length; ventral margin distinctly carinate. Maxillary palp equal to or shorter than height of head; antenna (Figs 1, 2) equal to or longer than body, first flagellomere usually short relative to species in genera such as Mesoleptidea and Hadrodactylus. Ocelli small to moderate in size, diameter of lateral ocellus less than distance from lateral ocellus to eye in most specimens examined. Hypostomal carina meeting occipital carina above base of mandible; occipital carina complete dorsally. Epomia present, though sometimes weak and somewhat obscured by adjacent sculpture. Epomia usually absent or indistinct. Epicnemial carina variable usually reaching anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus present usually as a deep, distinct impression on anterior declivity, sometimes more weakly impressed, becoming weaker and shallow on disk, variable in extent: extending to or nearly to level of tegula in some species, extending posteriorad level of tegula and meeting in median, shallow depression near posterior margin in other species; represented on disk as a relatively deep groove in at least one species. Groove between propodeum and metapleuron absent to very weakly indicated, not u-shaped as in pionines; pleural carina present, usually strongly elevated, though weak posteriorly in a few species; median longitudinal carinae very well-developed, forming broad, rounded petiolar area posteriorly, this area usually about 0.5 times length of propodeum, with carinae narrowly separated anteriorly; lateral longitudinal carina usually weaker than median longitudinal carina, nearly always extending to spiracle from posterior margin, transverse carinae absent in nearly all species examined. Legs with apical margin of mid tibia expanded into a tooth that is either as well-developed as or more rounded and definitely not as well-developed as that of fore leg; apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia present though not strongly developed; posterior hind tibial spur about 0.4-0.5 times length of hind basitarsus, as in Fig. 1; tarsal claws not pectinate; fifth tarsomere of hing leg normal, not unusually elongate (relative to fourth) (Fig. 1). Fore wing (Fig. 5) with areolet absent; stigma broad, Rs+2r arising from midpoint. Hind wing (Fig. 5) with first abscissa of CU1 longer than 1cu-a. T1 relatively slender (Fig. 6) very gradually expanding posteriorly; ventral margin straight in profile; dorsal carinae present, usually distinctly elevated and extending distinctly posteriorad level of spiracles; dorsal-lateral carina complete between spiracle and apex of T1; glymma absent. S1 usually extending 0.35 times length of T1; not extending to level of spiracle. T2 thyridium readily visible. Laterotergites of T2 and T3 separated by creases from median tergite. Ovipositor and sheath (Fig. 1) straight, ovipositor with distinct dorsal, subapical notch.

The above description is modified from Townes (1970), and based on numerous specimens in the Texas A&M University collection, including one specimen of the type species of Hypamblys.

1. Hypamblys habitus...
2. Hypamblys h...
3.Hypamblys face
4.Hypamblys mesoscutum
5.Hypamblys wings
6.Hypamblys T1
7. Hypamblys ovipositor a...
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
The biology of a species attacking the larch sawfly in Europe was published by Pschorn-Walcher and Zinnert (1971).

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 Dimitry Kasparyan for a greater understanding of genera such as this one. 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.