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.
