The Wharton Lab

Dictyopheltes Gauld, 1984: 225, 226, 229, 230, 366 (key, figures, description). Gupta 1987: 354-355 (catalog). Yu and Horstmann 1997: 454 (catalog).

Type species: Dictyopheltes robustus Gauld, 1984, by original designation.

In two of the three specimens available for study, the clypeus is flat or nearly so in profile, and the apical margin is evenly truncate throughout. In the third specimen, the clypeus is slightly more convex in profile with the apical margin slightly protruding medially. In one of the three specimens, the median portion of the interantennal ridge that extends posteriorly to the median ocellus is absent, leaving only two tall, lateral flanges bordering the inner margins of the depression on the frons. The absence of the median portion is considered a derived condition since the lateral flanges are in the same position as they are in the three-pronged configuration of other Dictyopheltes specimens. The fore wing areolet is present in two of the three specimens examined. Gauld (1984) also described the areolet as present in the holotype of the type species.

Gauld (1984)

stated that Dictyopheltes lacked a glymma. A glymma-like depression is present in nearly all individuals that we examined (Zhaurova and Wharton 2009), but is much different in appearence than the glymma of Westwoodia, Gauldia and Hypopheltes. It is narrow, shallow to distinctly impressed and almost slit-like in at least one specimen. Three specimens were examined, representing three species. These included two undescribed species noted by Gauld (1984): his “sp. 2” from Clunes and an undescribed species from Bin Bin Range that lacks a fore wing areolet.

Dictyopheltes is readily identified by the densely and coarsely granular-rugose propodeum (lacking distinct carinae), which is more heavily sculptured than in any of the other westwoodiine genera. The notauli are also distinctive in that they are evanescent anteriorly, and thus not deeply incised at the anterior margin of the mesoscutum. Dictyopheltes is most similar to Pergaphaga in overall body sculpture and the nature of the glymma.

Length: body 12-13.5 mm, fore wing 10-13 mm. Head (Figs 3, 4): Clypeal margin thin, slightly protruding, truncate. Clypeus 2.2-2.4 times as broad as long, flat to weakly convex in profile, punctate to slightly rugose, with median transverse sulcus usually prominent. Anterior tentorial pits fairly small, distinct, epistomal sulcus weak to indistinct. Malar space 0.6-1.1 times basal width of mandible. Mandible with ventral tooth slightly longer than dorsal tooth, sides parallel over apical 0.7. Face 2.2-2.9 times as broad as long, terminating dorsally with a median tooth, face evenly punctate, punctures deep and dense (Fig. 3). Interantennal area with a prominent ridge or pair of ridges that extend beyond posterior margin of toruli; median ridge splitting into median and 2 lateral carinae posteriorly. Frons deeply concave immediately behind scape, turning convex before reaching ocelli; densely setose and weakly convex adjacent eye, where it is slightly elevated above the eye. Widest diameter of torulus about 1.3-1.4 times widest diameter of median ocellus. Area between lateral ocelli depressed and then slightly raised laterally, distance between lateral ocelli 1.6-1.8 times their widest diameter, distance from lateral ocellus to eye margin 1.8-2.0 times its widest diameter. Area behind ocelli regularly rounded, slightly raised medially. Frons and vertex densely punctate. Antennae longer than body, with 32 flagellomeres. Length of first flagellomere 1.6 times widest transverse diameter of eye, second flagellomere about equal length of first. Occipital carina complete, joining hypostomal carina above base of mandible. Occiput fairly short: varying from slightly to much shorter mid-dorsally than distance between lateral ocellus and occipital carina. Pronotum dorsally in profile distinctly and broadly concave, strongly depressed medially, expanded anteriorly, with truncate anterior margin, without discernible transverse sulcus. Lateral groove of the pronotum present, not very distinct due to extensively and deeply punctate to rugose texture of pronotum; similarly, epomia indistinct to absent. Mesoscutum weakly convex, nearly flat, densely punctate anteriorly, punctures not as dense posteriorly; notauli varying from weak, shallow to quite deeply incised, arising just past anterior margin of mesoscutum (Fig. 4), usually extending onto posterior half of mesoscutum but not reaching posterior margin. Mesopleuron with broad, sharply defined longitudinal impression for reception of femur. Metapleuron deeply and uniformly punctate. Propodeum rugose, strongly convex and quite narrow longitudinally, distance between spiracles at least 2.0 times mid-dorsal length, pleural carinae complete, median and lateral longitudinal carinae vestigial posteriorly, transverse and longitudinal carinae otherwise absent or completely obscured by rugose sculpture, basal median depression shallow to nearly absent. Tibia and tarsus slender, longest hind tibial spur shorter than greatest apical width of tibia. Fore wing with areolet usually present, petiolate; occasionally absent; when areolet present, stalk of petiole opposite 2m-cu, and 3rs-m slightly longer than 2rs-m; 1cu-a almost opposite base of Rs+M, vertical; marginal cell slender; first subdiscal cell not explanate distally. Hind wing with first abscissa of Cu1 shorter than 1cu-a; distal abscissa of Cu1 deeply pigmented and tubular at least over basal 0.6-0.75, less distinctly tubular and sometimes more weakly pigmented distally, nearly always reaching wing margin. T1 less than 2.0 times as long as posteriorly broad, S1 reaching about 0.5 times distance to spiracle. Glymma (Fig. 6) basal, ventrad dorsal tendon attachment; varying from very shallow and indistinct to narrow, shallow and slit-like. Dorsal tendon attaches to a flat or nearly flat surface.

Australia:
Queensland: Bin Bin Range via Didcot and Swan River (both BMNH); Victoria: Clunes, bred 7.iv.1958, Eucalyptus leucoxylon ex Perga leaski Benson (BMNH).

An undescribed species from Victoria, listed under the distribution section below, bears a label indicating that the host is Perga leaski Benson (Pergidae). It is the same specimen used by Gauld (1984) to record this host for Dictyopheltes, though Gauld did not provide any locality data.

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton. It is part of a revision of the genera of Westwoodiini and Scolobatini conducted by Kira Zhaurova as part of her M. S. thesis in Entomology at Texas A&M University, completed in 2005 and subsequently published in the Contributions of the American Entomological Institute (Zhaurova and Wharton 2009).

This work would not have been possible without the groundwork provided by Ian Gauld’s study of the Australian fauna, and we are particularly grateful for his assistance in many aspects of this study. We also thank the following curators and researchers for extended loans of the material used for the revision of Scolobatini and Westwoodiini: David Wahl (AEIC), John LaSalle (ANIC), Ian Gauld and Gavin Broad (BMNH), Andy Bennett (CNC), Gabriel Melo (DZUP), Anders Albrecht and Pekka Malinen (FMNH), Ronald Zúñiga (INBio), Ken Walker (MVMA), Hege Vårdal (NHRS), Chris Burwell (QM), and Dave Furth (USNM). Matt Yoder provided considerable assistance along the way, particularly with databasing. Images used here were obtained through the combined efforts of Kira Zhaurova, Heather Cummins, and Patricia Mullins. Our use of PURLs (http://purl.oclc.org) follows the example of their use in publications by Norm Johnson. This content is based upon work conducted at Texas A&M University and supported by the National Science Foundation’s PEET program under Grant No. DEB 0328922 and associated REU supplement nos DEB 0723663 and DEB 0616851. Page last updated April, 2011.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 with REU supplements DEB 0723663 and DEB 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.