The Wharton Lab

Scolobatina ruficeps Roman, 1915: 4. Viereck 1921: 144 (type species listed); Townes et al. 1961: 213, 447 (catalog; key to genera); Townes 1970: 56-58 (redescription of genus; key to genera of Westwoodiini)

Westwoodia longipes Gauld, 1984: 233-234, new name for Westwoodia ruficeps (Roman) not Westwoodia ruficeps Brulle, 1846. Gupta 1987: 356 (catalog); Yu and Horstmann 1987: 456 (catalog).

Westwoodia
Westwoodiini
Ctenopelmatinae

Westwoodia longipes is the valid name for the type species of Scolobatina Roman, 1915. Scolobatina was first treated as a synonym of Westwoodia by Gauld (1984).

This species is known from a single specimen, the male holotype.

First flagellomere of antenna densely setose throughout (Fig. 1); interantennal flange absent (Fig. 2), replaced by low, somewhat irregular, V or Y-shaped carina, the median stem indistinct (Fig. 3); lateral swelling of frons with weakly carinate inner margin; face finely and sparsely punctate laterally (Fig. 4), slightly more densely punctate than W. ruficeps medially; occipital carina weak, partly obliterated (Fig. 3); male tarsus long and slender (Figs 5, 6); shape of female tarsus unknown; fore wing (Figs 7, 8) with stigma dark brown and areolet absent; fore tarsus yellow, hind tarsus dark brown, mesosoma (Figs 7, 9) black, metasoma dorsally, except for apical margin of terga, reddish basally (Fig. 9), black apically. Females are unknown and therefore sexual dimorphism in structure of the tarsi cannot be assessed.

Distinguished from all other species of Westwoodia by the poorly developed occipital carina and the absence of a fore wing areolet. This species is most similar to W. romani, based on the elongate fore and hind tarsi, setal pattern on the occiput, and sculptural details of the interantennal area and frons: specifically the absence of an elevated flange between the antennae, and the presence of low carinae. The median depression on the frons is not quite as deep and the carina along the lateral margin of the depression is not as well developed as in W. romani, but the frontal depression in both species is more shallow than it is in W. ruficeps and W. gauldi.

One specimen from Adelaide noted in the material examined section is difficult to place because it is somewhat intermediate between W. romani and W. longipes. The occipital carina is effaced dorsomedially in this specimen vs. W. romani but well-developed dorsolaterally and laterally vs. W. longipes. As in W. romani, the fore wing areolet is present in the Adelaide specimen (though small), and the frons is more distinctly impressed, with the median carina present. The dorsal tendon of the propodeum is attached to almost a flat surface on the petiole of the Adelaide specimen as it is in the holotype of W. longipes, but attaches within a distinct depression in all other specimens of Westwoodia that we have examined, including the type series of W. romani. The Adelaide specimen raises the possibility that the holotype, the only known specimen of W. longipes, is an extreme variant of the species we have described as W. romani. However, until more material becomes available to assess this possibility, it seems more logical to retain the two as separate species given the differences in wing venation. The Adelaide specimen was specifically mentioned by Morley (1913) in his redescription of W. ruficeps, which it clearly is not because of the slender tarsi and lack of a tall, median, interantennal flange.

The incomplete and weakly developed occipital carinae also serves to distinguish this species from all other described members of the tribe Westwoodiini. Roman (1915) described the occipital carina as absent above and on the temple. The carina is present though weak on the ventral part of the head, and appears to be weakly indicated dorsally, at least in part. This is difficult to verify because the holotype is somewhat dirty.

See the monograph on Westwoodia by Wharton et al. (2008).

Australia

No additional information on either the labels attached to the holotype or in the original description.

Unknown

Unknown

Holotype ♂ (Stockholm)
7 labels as follows:
Australia (printed, black ink on white paper)

329/63 (printed and hand-written in black ink on pink paper; a museum loan tag)

Scolobatina Roman (hand-written black ink on white paper)

ruficeps Rm (hand-written black ink on white paper)

266/82 (printed and hand-written in black ink on pink paper; a museum loan tag)

Riksmuseum Stockholm (printed in black ink on blue paper)

Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet Stockholm Loan No 1/07 (printed in black ink on lavender paper)

Specimen of uncertain identity:
1 female (BMNH): [SOUTH AUSTRALIA], Adelaide, F Sm[ith] Coll 79 . 22. The specimen bears three older determination labels: W. ruficeps det. C. Morley 1911, not ruficeps det. Roman, and Westwoodia det. I. D. Gauld, 1984.

Yu and Horstmann (1987) list Viereck’s paper as published in 1922 but the copy I examined is dated 1921, with a stamp on the cover page saying issued June 11, 1921.

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton, and is part of a revision of the genus Westwoodia by Wharton, Karl Roeder, and Matt Yoder (Wharton et al. 2008). We thank Hege Vardal (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm) for the extended loan of the holotype.

This material is based upon work conducted at Texas A&M University and supported by the National Science Foundation’s PEET program under Grant No. 0328922 and associated REU supplement # 0616851. Page last updated February, 2011.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplement 0616851.
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.