Barytarbes Förster, 1869

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Barytarbes Foerster, 1869: 212. Type species: Tryphon colon Gravenhorst, 1829. Subsequent designation by Viereck (1914: 20) from among several species first included by Thomson (1883: 931).

Polytera Foerster, 1869: 202. Type species: Mesoleius (Barytarbus) laviusculus Thomson. Subsequent designation by Viereck (1914: 121), chosen from two species first included by Dalla Torre (1901: 309). Synonymized by Perkins (1962: 447)

Isodiaeta Foerster, 1869: 204. Type species: Isodiaeta segmentaria Perkins, 1962. Subsequent designation by Perkins (1962: 432). Monobasic. Synonymized by Perkins (1962: 432). Perkins (1962: 432) used a Gravenhorst’s interpretation of segmentarius Fabricius, but questioned whether Gravenhorst interpreted this nominal species correctly. Subsequent authors have interpreted this as a deliberate misidentification and therefore attributed authorship to Perkins in accordance with ICZN.

Hybristes Foerster, 1869: 210. Type species: Tryphon adpropinquator Gravenhorst, 1829. Subsequent designation by Townes et al. (1965: 255). Synonymized by Townes et al. (1965: 255). A junior homonym of Hybristes Reichenbach, 1850.

Apholium Townes, 1970: 113. Type species: Apholium leptobasis Townes, 1970. Monobasic and original designation. Synonymized by Aubert (2000: 194).

Barytarbus Thomson, 1883: 931. Unjustified emendation.

Polytreres Thomson, 1892: 1873. Unjustified emendation.

Although Perkins (1962) synonymized Polytrera under Barytarbes, Dalla Torre (1901: 309) listed Barytarbus Thomson as a synonym of both Barytarbes Foerster and Polytrera Foerster.

The following valid species were included by Yu et al. (2012). The distribution is Holarctic (Townes, 1970).

Barytarbes adpropinquator (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Barytarbes annulipes (Thomson, 1883)
Barytarbes antennatus (Provancher, 1877)
Barytarbes colon (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Barytarbes compos (Davis, 1897)
Barytarbes flavicornis (Thomson, 1892)
Barytarbes flavoscutellatus (Thomson, 1892)
Barytarbes fulvus Sheng and Schoenitzer, 2008
Barytarbes hilarellus Schmiedeknecht, 1914
Barytarbes himertoides Teunissen, 1953
Barytarbes honestus (Cresson, 1868)
Barytarbes illuminator Aubert, 1969
Barytarbes laeviusculus (Thomson, 1883)
Barytarbes lalashanensis (Kusigemati, 1990)
Barytarbes leptobasis (Townes, 1970)
Barytarbes pectoralis (Brischke, 1871)
Barytarbes provancheri (Cushman, 1917)
Barytarbes ruficornis Ulbricht, 1926
Barytarbes superbus Schmiedeknecht, 1914

Barytarbes segmentarius (Perkins, 1962) is a junior subjective synonym of Barytarbes flavicornis (Thomson, 1892)

Diagnosis and Relationships
Barytarbes is characterized primarily by the nearly complete absence of propodeal carinae in combination with a large fore wing areolet. The species of Alexeter are generally more slender and usually have the notaulus sharply impressed on the anterior declivity.
Frons without median horn or elevated carina. Clypeus (Figs 7-11) short and wide, strongly bulging subapically, with rounded transverse ridge; ventral margin sharp throughout, deeply impressed medially and occasionally difficult to see medially (Fig. 7) because of partially overlapping transverse ridge; ventral margin truncate to weakly concave medially, with lateral margins distinctly angled dorsally; epistomal sulcus sharply setting off face from bulging (in profile) clypeus. Malar space shorter than half basal width of mandible, very short in some individuals. Mandible (Figs 7-11) moderately long, curved, gradually narrowing from base to dark edge of apical teeth, then parallel-sided or slightly broadened, ventral tooth varying from slightly (Figs 7-9) to distinctly (Figs 10, 11) longer than dorsal tooth, with the shorter variant possibly due to wear. Inner eye margins parallel (Fig. 10) to weakly converging (Fig. 11). Female ocelli small, with maximum diameter of lateral ocellus distinctly shorter than distance between ocellus and eye, ocellus slightly larger in males examined. Female and male antennae longer than body; first flagellomere long and slender, nearly twice longer than second (Figs 1, 2). Hypostomal carina joining occipital carina above base of mandible; occipital carina complete. Epomia absent. Dorsal end of epicnemial carina usually extending to anterior margin of mesopleuron (Fig. 12) or nearly so, less commonly distinctly separated from anterior margin; mesopleuron ventrally mat, finely punctate. Notaulus absent (Fig. 14) to weakly impressed on anterior declivity (Fig. 13), weak to absent on disk. Pleural carina (Figs 15, 16) usually distinct dorsoanteriorly, weak to absent ventroposteriorly; propodeal carinae reduced to short spurs off posterior margin (Figs 15-17). Legs with apical comb on posterior side of hind tibia short but well developed, dense; hind tibial spurs long, slender (Figs 3, 4), longest spur often longer than half length of hind basitarsus; all tarsal claws apparently simple, not pectinate. Fore wing areolet present; stigma as in Fig. 6, not exceptionally broad, with Rs+2r arising from or near midpoint. Hind wing with first abscissa of CU1 usually slightly longer than 1cu-a, sometimes equal in length and rarely very slightly shorter. T1 (Figs 17-20) gradually widening posteriorly; dorsal carinae usually absent or confined to margins of deep basal depression of dorsal tendon attachment; dorsal-lateral carina sharp and distinct from spiracle to posterior margin of T1, often absent or poorly indicated anteriorly; glymma deep, broad basally, narrowing posteriorly. S1 extending to level of spiracle in most species, nearly so in others. T2 thyridium present; laterotergites of T2 and T3 completely separated by creases. Ovipositor (Figs 1, 2, 21, 22) short, more or less straight, with deep, broad subapical, dorsal notch; ovipositor sheath shorter than hind tibial spur. Apex of female metasoma as in Figs 21, 22.

This description is considerably modified from Townes (1970) and based largely on five Nearctic species in the Texas A&M University Collection.

According to Aubert (2000), some Palaearctic species have poorly developed glymmae similar to that of the type species of Apholium and he therefore treated Apholium as a synonym of Barytarbes_. The five North American species that we have examined all have a well-developed, deep glymma as in Fig. 19. See the _Apholium page for images of the type species of this nominal taxon.

1. Barytarbes provancheri habitus...
2. Barytarbes honestus habi...
3. Barytarbes ...
4. Barytarbes habitus femal...
5. Barytarbes habi...
6. Barytarbes h...
7. Barytarbes face and mandibles...
8. Barytarbes face and mandibles...
9. Barytarbes face and mand...
10. Barytarbes face and mandibles...
11. Barytarbes face and mandible...
12.Barytarbes mesosoma and T1
13.Barytarbes mesoscutum
14.Barytarbes mesoscutum
15.Barytarbes propodeum
16. Barytarbes propodeum...
17. Barytarbes pr...
18. Barytar...
19. Barytarbes metasoma female...
20. Barytarbes metasoma male...
21. Barytarbes female apex o...
22. Barytarbes female apex o...
23. Barytarbes ...
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.

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 also thank 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. 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, Patricia Mullins, Caitlin Nessner, Mika Cameron, Karl Roeder, Amanda Ladigo, and Cheryl Hyde graciously assisted 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 #s 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.