Perispuda Foerster, 1868

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Perispuda Foerster, 1869: 205. Type species: Mesoleptus facialis Gravenhorst, 1829. Subsequent inclusion by Thomson (1888: 1261). Monobasic.

Genarches Foerster, 1869: 200. Type species: Mesoleptus facialis Gravenhorst. Subsequent inclusion by Kriechbaumer (1891: 45). Monobasic. Synonymized by Kriechbaumer (1891).

Zaplethis Foerster, 1869: 205. Type species: Ichneumon sulphuratus Gravenhorst, 1807. Designated by Perkins (1962: 463). Monobasic. Synonymized by Perkins (1962: 463).

Perispudus Thomson, 1888: 1261. Unjustified emendation.

The following valid species, all Palaearctic (both Eastern and Western), were included by Yu et al. (2012):

Perispuda bibullata Sheng, 1999
Perispuda bignelli (Bridgman, 1881)
Perispuda facialis (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Perispuda khasiana (Cameron, 1900)
Perispuda mesoxantha (Thomson, 1894)
Perispuda nigra Sheng, 2009
Perispuda sulphurata (Gravenhorst, 1807)

Diagnosis and Relationships
Perispuda differs from nearly all other mesoleiines because the glymma on T1 is small to absent. It is absent in the specimens of Perispuda sulphurata that we examined, but apparently a small glymma is present in the type species, Perispuda facialis. Perispuda differs from Apholium, the other mesoleiine lacking a glymma, by the relative lengths of CU1 and 1cu-a in the hind wing (CU1 shorter in Perispuda). The absence of a glymma is characteristic of the members of the tribe Euryproctini. However, Persipuda will not go through the key to genera of Euryproctini in Townes (1970) because the dorsal tooth of the mandible is larger than the ventral tooth but the propodeal carinae are poorly developed (the petiolar area is open anteriorly).

The species of Perispuda are similar in many respects to those of Himerta (e. g. mandible, clypeus, propodeum) but the fore wing has an areolet and T1 has the glymma absent or very poorly developed.

Clypeus (Figs 2, 3) narrow, flat (Fig. 3) to slightly protruding ventrally (Fig. 2), type species with weakly elevated transverse ridge dorsally; surface sparsely punctate and partially wrinkled; margin sharp throughout (though a little less so in female of sulphurata: Fig. 2), truncate to very weakly concave medially, lateral margins broadly angled and somewhat curved dorsolaterally; epistomal sulcus narrow, distinct. Malar space equal to or shorter than half basal width of mandible. Mandible (Figs 2, 3) short, curved to strongly curved, narrowing from base to apex; dorsal tooth wider and a little longer than ventral tooth; ventral margin carinate, sometimes strongly so. Inner eye margins parallel to weakly converging ventrally. Ocelli small, with maximum diameter of lateral ocellus shorter than distance between ocellus and eye. Maxillary palps shorter than height of head. Antenna nearly as long as body, at least in male; first flagellomere long and slender, about twice longer than second. Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia absent or very poorly developed (Fig. 4). Dorsal end of epicnemial carina usually not extending to anterior margin of mesopleuron (Figs 4, 6) in sulphurata, but extending to margin in facialis; mesopleuron polished, punctate (Fig. 6). Notaulus (Fig. 5) absent to weakly impressed on anterior declivity; when present, not extending to anterior margin. Pleural carina usually distinct throughout; propodeal carinae reduced: lateral longitudinal carina distinct apically, but often indistinct basally (as in Fig. 7); median longitudinal carinae either absent or nearly so as in Fig. 7 or present as irregular, parallel ridges medially; petiolar area broad, incomplete: broadly open anteriorly with lateral longitudinal carinae forming lateral margins. Legs with apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia present; hind tibial spurs long, slender (Figs 1, 9), longest spur about half length of long hind basitarsus; all tarsal claws simple, not pectinate. Fore wing (Fig. 8) with areolet present; stigma relatively narrow, with Rs+2r arising from basal 0.35-0.4. Hind wing (Fig. 8) with first abscissa of CU1 distinctly shorter than 1cu-a. T1 (Figs 10-11) gradually widening posteriorly, not particularly slender nor short and broad; dorsal carinae confined to margins of broad basal depression of dorsal tendon attachment, otherwise absent; dorsal-lateral carina usually low, rounded, indistinct; glymma either absent, as in Fig. 11 or small and shallow as in the figure of the type species in Townes (1970: 254). S1 extending to level of spiracle, which is slightly posteriorad middle of T1. T2 thyridium present (Fig. 12); laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor with subapical, dorsal notch. Setae on female subgenital plate slanted backwards, as in most other mesoleiines.

The species are relatively robust.

This description is modified from Townes (1970) and based largely on specimens of Perispuda sulphurata from the Canadian National Collection.

1. Perispuda sulphuratus male ...
2. Perispuda sulphuratus female face...
3.Perispuda sulphuratus male face
4. Perispuda sulphuratus ...
5. Perispuda sulphur...
6. Perispuda sulphuratus mes...
7. Perispuda sulphuratus propodeu...
8. Perispuda sulphuratus wings...
9. Perispuda sulphuratu...
10.Perispuda sulphuratus T1
11. Perispuda sulphuratus T1...
12. Perispuda sulphuratus T2...
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
Reared from two genera of Cimbicidae.

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 May, 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 are also grateful to David Wahl of the American Entomological Institute and especially Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection for extended loans of the material used for this page. We also thank David Wahl for useful feedback throughout our study. Matt Yoder provided considerable assistance with databasing issues, and our use of PURLs ( in this regard follows the example of their use in publications by Norm Johnson. Heather Cummins, Andrea Walker, Caitlin Nessner, Mika Cameron, 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 0723663, 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 0723663, 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.