The Wharton Lab

Anisotacrus Schmiedeknecht, 1913: 2710. Type species: Mesoleius tenellus Holmgren, 1857. Designated by Schmiedeknecht, 1913: 2725.

See Perkins (1962: 421) for reference to the validity of Anisotacrus.

Anisotacrus is Holarctic, and a key to species of the Russian Far East is provided in Kasparyan and Khalaim (2007). The following valid species were included by Yu et al. (2012):

Anisotacrus albinotus Kasparyan, 2007
Anisotacrus bipunctatus (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Anisotacrus iyoensis (Uchida, 1953)
Anisotacrus konishu Kasparyan, 2007
Anisotacrus kurilensis Kasparyan, 2007
Anisotacrus popofensis (Ashmead, 1902)
Anisotacrus spatiosus (Davis, 1897)
Anisotacrus truncatus (Davis, 1897)
Anisotacrus xanthostigma (Gravenhorst, 1829)

Anisotacrus tenellus (Holmgren, 1857) was listed as a synonym of _Anisotacrus bipunctatus (Gravenhorst, 1829) without discussion by Aubert (2000) and this synonymy needs confirmation, as is also suggested by Kasparyan and Khalaim (2007).

Anisotacrus is very similar to the more speciose genus Hadrodactylus but lacks the characteristically long, curved fifth tarsomere of the hind leg found in nearly all species of Hadrodactylus. Townes (1970) also noted differences in the clypeus, but I have not found these to be entirely convincing.

Clypeus broad, with surface punctate; ventral margin varying from evenly but weakly convex to more nearly truncate, the margin blunt; epistomal sulcus weak: at most broad and shallow; clypeus in profile weakly protruding. Inner eye margins parallel. Malar space distinct, at least 0.5 times basal width of mandible; malar sulcus absent. Mandible broad, gradually narrowing from base to apex; dorsal tooth varying from nearly equal in size to a little shorter than ventral tooth; ventral margin distinctly carinate. Maxillary palp shorter than height of head; female antenna longer than body, first flagellomere relatively long (as in Fig. 3); about equal in length to body in male. Hypostomal carina meeting occipital carina well above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epicnemial carina reaching anterior margin of mesopleuron. Notaulus present as a very weak impression on anterior declivity, becoming more faint and difficult to discern on disk, but usually reaching at least to level of tegula. Groove between propodeum and metapleuron weakly indicated, not u-shaped as in pionines; pleural carina present but not well-developed, complete; median and lateral longitudinal carinae varying from present as low ridges to partially effaced anteriorly; transverse carinae absent, though petiolar area sometimes nearly complete, bordered by anteriorly converging median longitudinal carinae. Hind femur slender (Fig. 1); apical margin of mid tibia expanded into a distinct tooth similar to that of fore leg; apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia present but not overt (Fig. 2); posterior hind tibial spur long, slender (Fig. 2); tarsal claws slender, not pectinate; fifth tarsomere of hing leg not unusually elongate (relative to fourth), nor curved (Fig. 2). Fore wing areolet present; stigma relatively narrow, Rs+2r arising near basal 0.4 up to midpoint of stigma. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 longer than 1cu-a. T1 long, slender, parallel-sided or nearly so from base to spiracles, then broadening apically; straight in profile; dorsal carinae absent; basal depression at dorsal tendon attachment distinct; dorsal-lateral carina complete between spiracle and apex of T1; glymma absent. S1 extending at least to level of spiracle. T2 thyridium present; laterotergites of T2 and T3 separated by creases from median tergite. Ovipositor and sheath (Fig. 1) short, weakly upcurved; ovipositor with broad, dorsal, subapical notch.

The above description is modified from Townes (1970), and based in part on two specimens in the Texas A&M University collection.

Sawflies in the genera Cephalcia, Dolerus, and Nematus have been recorded as hosts, according to Yu et al. (2012).

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 in particular David Wahl of the American Entomological Institute, Andy Bennett of the Canadian National Collection, and Gavin Broad of The Natural History Museum, London, for extended loans of the material used for this study. We also thank David Wahl and Dmitri Kasparyan for useful feedback throughout our study. 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, Patricia Mullins, Caitlin Nessner, Mika Cameron, 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 and 0923134.

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 and 0923134. 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.