AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES

Number 3733: 23 pp. February 17, 2012

Copyright © American Museum of Natural History 2012

ISSN 0003-0082

Are Monobia and Montezumia Monophyletic?
A Cladistic Analysis of Their Species Groups Based on Morphological Data (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae)

MARCEL G. HERMES[1] AND JAMES M. CARPENTER[2]

ABSTRACT

A concept of the higher-level phylogeny of the Eumeninae remains elusive. As such, the naturalness of several genera occurring in the Neotropical region is doubtful, including Monobia and Montezumia. Morphological data were used to infer the phylogenetic relationships among the species groups within both genera, as well as to test their monophyly. Analyses recovered Monobia and Montezumia as monophyletic as long as Montezumia arizonensis and Montezumia aurata were included in Monobia. Most species groups proposed by Willink in 1982 were also recovered as monophyletic. Three new combinations are proposed in congruence with the phylogenetic results: Monobia arizonensis, new combination, Monobia aurata, revised combination, and Monobia oaxaca, new combination. An additional new species is described: Monobia goiana Hermes, new species.

Key Words: cladistics, Eumeninae, Neotropical, phylogeny, wasps.

INTRODUCTION

There are 53 genera and about 1050 species of Eumeninae occurring in the New World (Carpenter and Garcete-Barrett, 2003 [2002]; Carpenter, 2004; West-Eberhard et al., 2006). The fauna of this region has received little attention regarding its suprageneric and generic classification, especially in the Neotropics. During the last century, the splitting of old Eumeninae genera into several others, as well as proposals for new ones, were undertaken by many authors (Bohart, 1940; Parker, 1966; Willink, 1967; Snelling, 1975; Giordani Soika, 1978; Bohart, 1982; 1984; Giordani Soika, 1990), resulting in generic classifications that must be rationalized by the synonymy of numerous taxa (Carpenter and Garcete-Barrett, 2003 [2002]). Furthermore, the current classification was never tested by cladistic methods, which reinforces the opinion that irrational splitting might have resulted in the creation of unnatural taxa.

Monobia de Saussure and Montezumia de Saussure are two Eumeninae genera ranging from the United States to northern Argentina, with the high peak of its diversity occurring in the Neotropics. Thirty-one and 48 species are described for Monobia and Montezumia, respectively. Although both taxa are from a region in which taxonomic practices were based on splitting rather than lumping, they are not the result of the splitting of one genus: both were described in 1852 by Henri de Saussure in his monograph on the Tribu des Euméniens, each comprising a reasonable number of new species descriptions as well.

In 1875 de Saussure, in his synopsis of the American wasps, compared Montezumia to Monobia, mainly because of the identical number of labial and maxillary palpomeres. He tried to separate them using the form of the first metasomal segment as a diagnostic character, but made clear that transitory forms always occurred. De Saussure (1875) divided Montezumia into five divisions, while two other divisions were delimited within Monobia. Zavattari (1912) was the first author to comprehensively revise both taxa. He recognized 27 species for Montezumia and 21 for Monobia, and also created the genus Pinta for the species chalybea de Saussure, previously placed in the division Antezumia of Montezumia. Also, Zavattari restricted both genera to include only American elements.

Bequaert (1921) published a synopsis of the genus Montezumia, dividing it into four divisions: Montezumia, Antezumia, Pseudozumia, and Acarozumia. Antezumia is currently recognized as a monotypic Neotropical genus and is a senior synonym of Pinta Zavattari. Pseudozumia is currently composed of six valid species that occur in the Afrotropical and Oriental regions. The remaining species recognized by Bequaert (1921) within Pseudozumia are placed in other genera, which occur in the Afrotropical and Oriental regions. Finally, Acarozumia is composed of three species occurring in the Australian and Oriental regions. Like de Saussure (1875), Bequaert (1921) stated that the differences between Montezumia and Monobia were arbitrary. The recognition of Montezumia as currently known (i.e., containing only American elements) was also followed by Bequaert (1940a; in agreement with Zavattari’s [1912] concept).

Later, Bequaert (1940b) published a synopsis of the genus Monobia wherein he recognized 21 structural forms plus five color forms (varieties). Once again, he noted that difficulties may arise when trying to hold Montezumia and Monobia as separate taxa, as follows: “No definite limits can be drawn between Montezumia and Monobia, although the typical members of each genus are readily placed. For this reason I have included in my key the North American Montezumia arizonensis J. Bequaert, which may well be sought under Monobia and is very similar in coloration to Monobia texana.”

The most recent revision of both Monobia and Montezumia was published by Willink (1982), who presented a series of characters to distinguish the two genera. Although many species are readily placed, the presence of many transitory forms was noted once again, making the diagnosis of both taxa subjective. Moreover, Willink (1982) considered that Monobia aurata Bertoni belongs to Montezumia, remarking that most of the characters presented by this species made it fit better within the Montezumia. Another taxonomic procedure adopted by Willink (1982) was the elimination of all divisions within each genus, recognizing only species groups. Although arbitrariness concerning the limits of Monobia and Montezumia remains, the monograph presented by Willink (1982) is by far the most comprehensive one, with a complete taxonomic background, descriptions of several new species, illustrations, distributional maps, and keys to species level.

Carpenter and Cumming (1985) investigated the relationships among the Nearctic genera of Eumeninae, with Montezumia and Monobia recovered as sister groups placed in their Montezumia-Pseudodynerus component, which was supported by the slitlike form of the axillary fossa. All other genera included in this component were recently studied: Pseudodynerus de Saussure had its species relationships investigated by Hermes and Melo (2008) and Hermes (2010); Paranortonia (now Parazumia de Saussure) was revised by Carpenter and Garcete-Barrett (2005); another related genus, Plagiolabra von Schulthess, not included in Carpenter and Cumming’s (1985) analysis as it is Neotropical, was also corroborated as monophyletic by Hermes and Melo (2008). The case of Montezumia and Monobia, however, requires further investigation.

In the present work, the naturalness of Monobia and Montezumia were put to the test by using morphological evidence to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships within the clade Monobia-Montezumia. Furthermore, the monophyly of the species groups proposed by Willink (1982) was also investigated. Three new combinations and one new species are proposed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Study of Morphology

Material from the following institutions was examined: American Museum of Natural History (New York), Coleção de Entomologia Pe. Jesus Santiago Moure, Universidade Federal do Paraná (Curitiba, Brazil), and Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay (San Lorenzo, Paraguay).

The study of the external morphology was carried out through examination of dry, pinned specimens. Both adult females and males (when available) were examined for character circumscription. Male genitalia were also studied. The genital capsules were detached from the metasoma, heated and cleared in lactophenol, and stored in glycerin. Structures were observed under a stereoscopic microscope ZEISS Stemi SV6. Photographs of relevant structures were obtained with a Leica DFC 500 digital camera attached to the stereoscopic microscope Leica MZ 16. The images were captured with the software IM 50 (Image Manager) and mounted with the software Auto-Montage Pro 5.03.0040.

Taxon Sampling

In order to test the monophyly of Monobia and Montezumia, species representing all species groups proposed by Willink (1982) were included (table 1). A total of 32 species belonging to either Monobia or Montezumia were used as ingroup taxa. As outgroup taxa, species in the genera Parazumia, Plagiolabra, Pseudodynerus, and Stenonartonia were included. Character polarization was obtained posterior to the analyses by rooting (Nixon and Carpenter, 1993). Trees were rooted between Stenonartonia apicipennis (Fox) and the remaining taxa. Abbreviations for Monobia and Montezumia are Mb. and Mt., respectively, to allow ready distinction between species included in each genus.

TABLE 1. Number of terminals used for each species-group within Monobia and Montezumia following the classification proposed by Willink (1982)

Species group

Species (N)

Total species (N)

Monobia caridei

1

2

Monobia angulosa

12

29

Montezumia arizonensis

1

2

Montezumia azurescens

3

7

Montezumia ferruginea

1

1

Montezumia leprieurii

3

11

Montezumia nigriceps

4

7

Montezumia dimidiata

3

6

Montezumia infernalis

4

14

Cladistic Analyses

Characters were treated as nonadditive (Fitch, 1971). The matrix was constructed in Winclada (Nixon 2002), and the searches for most-parsimonious cladograms performed with the software TNT 1.1 (Goloboff et al., 2008a). Characters were treated using equal weights and implied weights (Goloboff, 1993). Under implied weights, values of the constant k between 3 and 10 were tested. The New Technology Search protocols were used for both character weighting schemes, with the algorithms Ratchet (Nixon, 1999; Perturbation Phase adjusted to 25 and 5 for upweighting and downweighting respectively, plus 200 iterations), Drift (Goloboff, 1999; 20 cycles), and Tree Fusing (Goloboff, 1999; 100 rounds) implemented. Each round of analysis comprising the full set of algorithms was performed until minimum tree length was hit at least 100 times. Clade support was investigated through the symmetric resampling method (10,000 replications) (Goloboff et al., 2003) and Bremer support (Bremer, 1994) (suboptimal trees up to 15 steps longer), also performed in TNT 1.1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cladistic Analyses

A total of 49 characters were circumscribed after examination of the specimens (tables 2 and 4). Thirty-nine characters were derived from external morphology, while 10 were limited to male genitalia.

The analysis of the matrix using equal weights returned 35 trees of 149 steps, with the strict consensus shown in figure 1. The analyses using implied weighting and different constant k values returned different topologies and number of trees compared to equal weights (figs. 2–4; table 3). We base our discussion on the cladograms using equal weighting and implied weighting under the values 3 (strict consensus tree shown in fig. 2), 7 (single tree shown in fig. 3), and 8 (single tree shown in fig. 4) of the constant k, because they differ in terms of the internal relationships among species groups within Monobia and Montezumia.

The higher-level phylogenetic relationships among eumenine genera remain elusive, with only one published effort including Monobia and Montezumia as ingroup taxa (Carpenter and Cumming, 1985). Although their results indicate a sister-group relationship between Parazumia (formerly Paranortonia) and Monobia + Montezumia, related genera such as Plagiolabra and Stenonartonia were not included, rendering any topology obtained within this clade inconclusive with regard to a complete sample of relevant taxa. Therefore, we will defer discussion on the relationships of the outgroup taxa.

Both Monobia and Montezumia were recovered as monophyla, but only if Montezumia arizonensis Bequaert and Montezumia aurata Bertoni are included in Monobia (figs. 1–4). In all analyses, three synapomorphies always supported the clade Monobia + Montezumia: maxillary palpi with five palpomeres (char. 1, state 1), labial palpi with three palpomeres (char. 2, state 1), and epicnemial carina present (char. 22, state 1) (table 4). This palpal formula is clearly synapomorphic for Monobia + Montezumia for the major clade in which these genera are placed (Carpenter and Cumming, 1985), and it is a condition considered diagnostic by Willink (1982). The presence of epicnemial carina, however, is also observed in the species of other related genera such as Pseudodynerus (e.g., P. auratoides Bertoni and P. carpenteri Hermes and Melo; Hermes and Melo, 2008) and Stenonartonia (the species in the species group of S. occipitalis Garcete-Barrett, 2011). One homoplastic transformation also supports Monobia + Montezumia in every analysis, the cephalic foveae placed closer to the occipital carina than to the ocelli (char. 9, state 1), a condition also shared with Plagiolabra. When it comes to the equal-weighting analysis alone, the apex of digitus rounded in the male genitalia (char. 40, state 0) is also synapomorphic for this clade, with several homoplastic changes occurring among lineages within both genera. Thus, it is not surprising that this character would consequently be downweighted in the implied-weighting analyses.

As stated above, Monobia is monophyletic provided Montezumia arizonensis and Montezumia aurata are included in this genus. Bequaert (1940a), when describing Mt. arizonensis, commented that this species would be “on the border line of Monobia and Montezumia, the limits between these genera being arbitrary.” Indecision also existed regarding Montezumia aurata, which was originally described in Monobia by Bertoni (1918) and later transferred to Montezumia by Willink (1982). The monophyly of Monobia is supported by different homoplastic transformations when different weighting schemes and values of k were used. Under equal weights the evident notauli (char. 20, state 1; fig. 19), the metasomal sternum I more than three times as wide as long (char. 36, state 1; fig. 31), and the absence of carina on the base of the metasomal sternum I (char. 37, state 1; fig. 32) are supportive of the clade. Of special interest is character 37, which does not conform to the condition, cited above, that supports a large clade within Monobia (char. 37, state 0; fig. 31). Character 36 (state 1) is maintained as supportive of Monobia under implied weighting and k values between 3 and 7 in addition of different homoplastic changes (figs. 2 and 3). With implied weighting under k values between 8 and 10, characters 20 (state 1) and 37 (state 1) were once again recovered as supportive of the clade (fig. 4).

Within Monobia, Mt. arizonensis was always placed as the sister species to the remaining Monobia, followed by Mt. aurata and Mb. caridei Brèthes. The group of Monobia caridei was recovered as sister to the group of Monobia angulosa de Saussure, which contains the majority of the species within the genus. Species groups proposed for Monobia by Willink (1982) were always recovered as monophyla. The group of Monobia angulosa is supported by one synapomophic condition in all analyses: cephalic foveae margined posteriorly by a carina (char. 8, state 0; fig. 12). The internal relationships of the Monobia angulosa group varied, with greater resolution reached as k values for the implied-weighting scheme were increased (compare figs. 2 and 4), that is, as the weighting function was weakened. Even though topology varied within this group, some relationships were always stable, such as the clade (Mb. goiana + Mb. insueta + Mb. triafasciata), the clade (Mb. apicalipennis + (Mb. funebris + Mb. nigripennis)), and the clade (Mb. angulosa + Mb. cingulata).

Montezumia is supported by two synapomorphies under equal weights: submarginal carina slightly raised (char. 32, state 1; fig. 27) and preapical longitudinal furrow on metasomal tergum I deep (char. 35, state 1). The raised submarginal carina is present throughout the entire genus, with a different condition (strongly raised: char. 32, state 2; fig. 28) supporting the clade (Mt. azteca + (Mt. azurescens + Mt. coerulorufa)). Despite this character’s seeming consistency among species of Montezumia, it was not optimized as a synapomorphy for the genus when implied weighting under k values between 3 and 7 was applied. Under values between 8 and 10, the condition was once again recovered as a synapomorphy for species of Montezumia. This is probably an effect of treating this character as nonadditive multistate.

As observed for the species group of Monobia angulosa, internal relationships within Montezumia varied when different approaches were considered. Again, greater resolution was obtained when implied weights were applied, increasing even more when higher values of k were used (figs. 2 and 3). This trend was maintained to the k value of 7, with some branches collapsing when values between 8 and 10 were tested (fig. 4). Among the species group of Montezumia proposed by Willink (1982), the group of Mt. arizonensis actually belongs to Monobia. The group of Mt. ferruginea de Saussure contains only one species, but its sister group could not be established from the present results. The group of Mt. infernalis (Spinola) was represented in the present study by the species Mt. aurata (now placed in Monobia), Mt. ignobiloides Willink, Mt. infernalis, and Mt. morosa de Saussure. It was the only species group not recovered as monophyletic, with its species recovered in different positions in the different analyses. Although sister-group relationships could not be established for the remaining species groups, all groups were corroborated as monophyletic in every tested weighting scheme: the group of Mt. azurescens (Spinola) with the topology as (Mt. azteca + (Mt. azurescens + Mt. coerulorufa)), the group of Mt. leprieurii (Spinola) with the topology as (Mt. brethesi + Mt. liliacea + Mt. pelagica), the group of Mt. nigriceps (Spinola) with the topology as (Mt. sparsa + (Mt. petiolata + (Mt. bruchii + Mt. nigriceps))), and the group of Mt. dimidiata de Saussure with the topology (Mt. analis + (Mt. cortesia + Mt. dimidiata)).

Although the values for Bremer branch support were relatively low (fig. 1; table 5), most clades were recovered as monophyletic as indicated above, but their relationships were not always stable. The same is true for branch support using the symmetric resampling method (table 5), with higher support values obtained when the implied weighting was performed (as shown by Goloboff et al., 2008b).

TABLE 2. Character list for Monobia and Montezumia.
Characters were extracted from females except where explicitly indicated

1. Number of maxillary palpomeres: (0) six; (1) five.

2. Number of labial palpomeres: (0) four; (1) three.

3. Inner axis of mandibles: (0) toothed; (1) not toothed.

4. Apex of labrum: (0) longer than wide; (1) wider than long.

5. Apex of clypeus: (0) slightly concave (fig. 5); (1) deeply concave (fig. 6); (2) truncate (figs. 7–9).

6. Clypeal dimensions: (0) wider than long; (1) as wide as long; (2) longer than wide.

7. Placement of cephalic foveae: (0) in a slightly raised region on vertex; (1) in a depressed region on vertex (figs. 10–13).

8. Cephalic foveae: (0) margined posteriorly by a carina (fig. 12); (1) not margined posteriorly by a carina (fig. 13).

9. Cephalic foveae: (0) placed halfway between lateral ocelli and occipital carina; (1) closer to occipital carina.

10. Setae on cephalic foveae: (0) dense and long; (1) somewhat sparse, short.

11. Occipital carina, dorsal portion: (0) absent; (1) present.

12. Occipital carina, ventral portion: (0) regular; (1) forked near mandibles.

13. Male antennal apex: (0) rolled backwards and concealed in a cavity on flagellomere VI; (1) not concealed.

14. Inner surface of male flagellomeres IX, X, and XI: (0) with tyloids; (1) without tyloids.

15. Pronotal carina, dorsal portion: (0) absent; (1) present.

16. Height of pronotal carina, dorsal portion: (0) slightly raised, less than half median ocelli diameter (fig. 14); (1) evidently raised, at least reaching half of median ocelli diameter (fig. 15). Applicable only to terminals that received state 1 for character 15.

17. Lateral surface of pronotum: (0) strongly depressed (fig. 18); (1) slightly depressed, almost seeming flat (figs. 16–17).

18. Humeral carina: (0) absent (fig. 16); (1) present (fig. 18).

19. Pretegular carina: (0) present; (1) absent.

20. Mesoscutum, posterior portion: (0) only slightly depressed posteriorly (fig. 20); (1) with evident notauli (fig. 19); (2) with shallow to obsolete notauli (figs. 21–22).

21. Mesepisternum: (0) without carina below pronotal lobe; (1) with carina below pronotal lobe.

22. Epicnemial carina: (0) absent; (1) present.

23. Apical lobe of tegula: (0) truncate (fig. 19); (1) pointed (figs. 20–22).

24. Prestigma: (0) longer than pterostigma; (1) longer than half of pterostigma; (2) less than half of pterostigma.

25. Apical forewing coloration: (0) whitish; (1) as in the remainder of the wing.

26. Metanotum: (0) with lateral longitudinal carina (fig. 25); (1) without lateral longitudinal carina (fig. 26).

27. Metanotum sculpture: (0) space between punctures not raised; (1) space between punctures slightly raised, forming a weak transverse crest (fig. 23); (2) space between punctures strongly raised, forming a strong transverse crest (fig. 24).

28. Dorsal surface of propodeum: (0) at same level as metanotum; (1) below level of metanotum.

29. Posterior surface of propodeum: (0) lamellate on upper portion; (1) not lamellate on upper portion.

30. Posterolateral angles of propodeum: (0) rounded (fig. 26); (1) projecting (fig. 25).

31. Median concavity of posterior surface of propodeum: (0) wide (fig. 25); (1) narrow (fig. 26).

32. Submarginal carina: (0) not raised; (1) slightly raised (fig. 27); (2) strongly raised (fig. 28).

33. Metasomal tergum 1 profile: (0) angular between anterior and dorsal surfaces (fig. 29); (1) not angular between anterior and dorsal surfaces (fig. 30).

34. Metasomal tergum 1 dorsal view: (0) without preapical longitudinal furrow; (1) with preapical longitudinal furrow.

35. Metasomal tergum 1 pre-apical furrow: (0) shallow to obsolete; (1) evident. Applicable only to terminals that received state 1 to character 34.

36. Metasomal sternum 1: (0) less than 3 times as wide as long (fig. 32); (1) more than 3 times as wide as long (fig. 31).

37. Metasomal sternum 1: (0) with carina basally (fig. 31); (1) without carina basally (fig. 32).

38. Base of metasomal sternum 2: (0) without transverse furrow; (1) with transverse furrow.

39. Base of metasomal sternum 2: (0) without lateral humps; (1) with lateral humps.

40. Apex of digitus: (0) rounded (fig. 36); (1) cylindrical (figs. 33 and 35); (2) truncate (fig. 34); (3) slender.

41. Setae on digitus: (0) sparsely setose; (1) densely setose, setae concentrated on apico-dorsal portion; (2) densely setose, setae distributed uniformly.

42. Basal dorsal angle of digitus: (0) acute (figs. 34 and 41); (1) straight to obtuse (figs. 33 and 41).

43. Basal ventral angle of digitus: (0) acute (figs. 34 and 41); (1) straight to obtuse (figs. 33 and 41).

44. Dorsal margin of digitus: (0) without spurs; (1) with spurs.

45. Base of cuspis: (0) with long differentiated setae; (1) without differentiated setae.

46. Basal margin of cuspis: (0) not projected; (1) projected.

47. Aedeagus: (0) ventrally expanded (figs. 37 and 39–40); (1) not ventrally expanded (fig. 38).

48. Ventral lobe of aedeagus: (0) with one evident projection (figs. 38–39); (1) with two spiny projections deeply concave in between (fig. 40); (2) with two weak projections slightly concave in between (fig. 37); (3) with weak angle.

49. Ventral margin of aedeagus: (0) serrate medially; (1) not serrate medially.

TABLE 3. Number of trees recovered under different weighting of the characters.
Abbreviations used: CI = consistency index; RI = retention index

Weighting scheme

Constant k

Trees recovered (N)

Steps (N)

CI

RI

Equal

–

35

149

40

74

Implied

3

9

154

38

73

Implied

4

3

152

39

73

Implied

5

3

152

39

73

Implied

6

3

152

39

73

Implied

7

1

150

40

74

Implied

8

1

149

40

74

Implied

9

1

149

40

74

Implied

10

1

149

40

74

TABLE 4. Character matrix for Monobia and Montezumia as constructed from morphological data. Symbols used: unseen (?); inapplicable (–)

Characters

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Terminals

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Stenonartonia apicipennis

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

–

0

0

0

0

3

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Parazumia carinulata

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

?

?

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

–

0

1

0

0

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Plagiolabra andina

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

–

0

0

0

0

3

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Plagiolabra nigra

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

–

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

Pseudodynerus quadrisectus

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Pseudodynerus subapicalis

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

–

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Monobia angulosa

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

–

1

0

1

0

1

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Monobia apicalipennis

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Monobia atrorubra

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

?

?

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Monobia caridei

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

2

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

3

1

Monobia cingulata

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Monobia curvata

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Monobia funebris

1

1

0

0

0

2

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Monobia goiana

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Monobia insueta

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Monobia nigripennis

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Monobia quadridens

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Monobia schrottkyi

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Monobia trifasciata

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

–

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Montezumia analis

1

1

0

0

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Montezumia arizonensis

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Montezumia aurata

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Montezumia azteca

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

2

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

Montezumia azurescens

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

Montezumia brethesi

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

Montezumia bruchii

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Montezumia coerulorufa

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Montezumia cortesia

1

1

0

0

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Montezumia dimidiata

1

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Montezumia ferruginea

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Montezumia ignobiloides

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

Montezumia infernalis

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Montezumia liliacea

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

Montezumia morosa

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Montezumia nigriceps

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

Montezumia pelagica

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

Montezumia petiolata

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

Montezumia sparsa

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

TABLE 5. Branch support values under different methods

Clade

Bremer support values
(equal weights)

Resampling (GC values)
(equal weights)

Resampling (GC values) (implied weights k = 3)

Genus Monobia

2

0.36

0.55

Genus Montezumia

1

0.32

0.61

Mb. angulosa group

1

0.21

0.66

Mt. azurescens group

1

0.83

0.87

Mt. dimidiata group

3

0.93

0.98

Mt. leprieurii group

3

0.62

0.46

Mt. nigriceps group

1

0.08

0.18

FIGURE 1. Strict consensus cladogram of 35 most parsimonious trees using equal weights of the characters. Black circles indicate synapomorphies and white circles homoplastic changes. Mb. = Monobia, Mt. = Montezumia. Bremer support values in boxes below branches. Species group as in figure 2.

FIGURE 2. Strict consensus cladogram of nine most parsimonious trees using implied weighting of the characters (k = 3). Black circles indicate synapomorphies and white circles homoplastic changes. Mb. = Monobia, Mt. = Montezumia, A = Mb. caridei group, B = Mb. angulosa group, C = Mt. azurescens group, D = Mt. leprieurii group, E = Mt. dimidiata group, F = Mt. nigriceps group.

FIGURE 3. Single cladogram obtained with implied weighting of the characters (k = 7). Black circles indicate synapomorphies and white circles homoplastic changes.

FIGURE 4. Single cladogram obtained with implied weighting of the characters (k = 8). Black circles indicate synapomorphies and white circles homoplastic changes.

FIGURES 5–13. 5–9. Female head in frontal view: 5. Mb. apicalipennis; 6. Mb. schrottkyi; 7. Mt. analis; 8. Mt. dimidiata; 9. Mt. infernalis. 10–13. Female head in dorsal view: 10. Mb. apicalipennis; 11. Mt. dimidiata; 12. Mb. funebris; 13. Mt. analis. Scale bars for 5–9 = 2 mm; 10–11 = 1 mm; 12–13 = 0.5 mm.

FIGURES 14–22. 14–15. Female pronotum in dorsal-oblique view: 14. Mb. apicalipennis; 15. Mt. analis. 16–18. Female mesosoma in lateral view: 16. Mb. apicalipennis; 17. Mt. dimidiata; 18. Mt. nigriceps. 19–22. Female mesosoma in dorsal view: 19. Mb. apicalipennis; 20. Mt. analis; 21. Mt. dimidiata; 22. Mt. nigriceps. Scale bars for 14–15 = 1 mm; 16–18 and 22 = 1 mm; 19–21 = 2 mm.

FIGURES 23–32. 23–24. Female metanotum in posterior view: 23. Mt. azurescens; 24. Mt. nigriceps. 25–26. Female propodeum in posterior view: 25. Mb. angulosa; 26. Mt. azurescens. 27–28. Female lower propodeum in lateral view: 27. Mt. nigriceps; 28. Mt. coeruleorufa. 29–30. Female tergum I in lateral view: 29. Mb. quadridens; 30. Mt. azurescens. 31–32. Female sternum I in ventral view: 31. Mb. schrottkyi; 32. Mt. azurescens. Scale bars for 23 = 0.3 mm; 24 = 0.5 mm; 25–26, 30–31 = 1 mm; 27–28 = 0.5 mm; 29, 32 = 1 mm.

FIGURES 33–41. 33–36. Male paramere and volsella (digitus and cuspis) in lateral inner view: 33. Mb. quadridens; 34. Mt. analis; 35. Mt. azurescens; 36. Mt. brethesi. 37–40. Male aedeagus in lateral view: 37. Mb. quadridens; 38. Mt. analis; 39. Mt. azurescens; 40. Mt. brethesi. 41. Sketchy representation of the digitus of Mb. quadridens and Mt. analis: da = basal dorsal angle of digitus; va = basal ventral angle of digitus. Scale bars for 33–35 = 1 mm; figs. 36–39 = 1 mm; 40 = 0.5 mm.

Taxonomy

Monobia and Montezumia, as recognized herein, can be readily separated by the submarginal carina raised above the propodeal orifice in the latter, following the key provided by Carpenter and Garcete-Barrett (2003 [2002]). This condition was also recovered as synapomorphic for the species included in Montezumia in our analysis (see discussion above).

Three new combinations are proposed for species currently placed in Montezumia in congruence with the phylogenetic results: M. aurata, M. arizonensis, and M. oaxaca. The last species cited was not included in the present analyses, but it is morphologically similar to and included in the group of Mt. arizonensis, so its placement follows. Also, a new species of Monobia is described. Abbreviations used in the description are: MOW, median ocellus width; POD, minimum distance between posterior ocelli; OED, minimum distance between compound eye and posterior ocellus; and MPOD, minimum distance between median ocellus and a posterior ocellus. For identification purposes, we recommend the use of the keys provided by Willink (1982), as it is still the most comprehensive work on the taxonomy of both Monobia and Montezumia.

Monobia arizonensis (Bequaert, 1940), new combination

Montezumia arizonensis Bequaert, 1940a: 96.

Type Locality: United States, “Sabino Canyon, Sa. Catalina Mountains, Pima Co. (EUA).”

Type: Holotype ♀, Cambridge (MCZ).

Montezumia arizonensis: Bohart, 1951: 885. Krombein, 1979: 1498. Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 480.

Monobia aurata Bertoni, 1918, revised combination

Monobia aurata Bertoni, 1918: 191, 207.

Type Locality: Paraguay, “Puerto Bertoni.”

Type: Holotype female, depository unknown.

Monobia aurata: Bequaert, 1940b: 826, 830.

Monobia aurata var. exigua Bertoni, 1918: 191, 207.

Type Locality: Paraguay, “Paraguay: Puerto Bertoni.”

Type: Holotype female, depository unknown.

Monobia aurata var. exigua: Bequaert, 1940b: 827, 830.

Montezumia aurata: Willink, 1982: 40, 162, 301, 315. Garcete-Barrett, 1999: 8.

Monobia oaxaca (Willink, 1982), new combination

Montezumia oaxaca Willink, 1982: 32, 68.

Type Locality: Mexico, “México, Oaxaca, Guelatao.”

Type: Holotype ♂, Los Angeles (LACM).

Montezumia oaxaca: Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 480.

Monobia goiana Hermes, new species

Figures 42–47, 53

Diagnosis

Monobia goiana is similar to M. insueta Giordani Soika and M. trifasciata Willink, running to couplet 8 in Willink’s (1982) key, all these species bearing two slight lateral humps on the base of sternum II (fig. 50). Monobia goiana is more similar to M. insueta, these two differing from M. trifasciata by the lack of long erect and pale hairs on head and mesosoma (present in M. trifasciata; figs. 42–46, 48, 51–53), narrower gena at the level of eye emargination (broader on M. trifasciata; figs. 42, 52), and complete pronotal carina dorsally (interrupted medially on M. trifasciata; figs. 44, 51, 53). Monobia goiana differs from M. insueta by the less evident humeral crest anteriorly (more evident in males of both species), the lack of a differentiated cuticular median area on the mesoscutum (in M. insueta the punctures are separated by somewhat raised cuticle devoid of micropunctures; figs. 44, 48), by the dull and weakly punctured surface of terga I–II (shiny and with coarser punctures on M. insueta; figs. 47, 49), and by the presence of yellow markings on clypeus, pronotum, tegula, and tergum I of female (absent in M. insueta).

Description

Holotype: Female.

Color: Integument mostly black with yellow markings as follows: band on base of clypeus, mark on lower inner orbit of compound eye, line on dorsal surface of pronotum interrupted medially, most of tegula, obsolete markings on scutellum, small and thin subapical line on tergum I, broad bands on apex of terga II–V, lateral subapical markings on tergum and sternum VI, lateral apical marks on sterna II–V. Foretibiae yellowish chestnut on inner and anterior surfaces. Wing membrane chestnut, venation chestnut becoming brownish at apex. Body covered by short and erect golden hairs, which are longer on head, lateral surface of propodeum, and sterna I–II.

Dimensions: Body from frons to apex of tergum II = 10.0 mm. Forewing length = 9.5 mm. Width of gena equivalent to 0.89 times the width of eye at emargination. Proportion MOW : POD : OED : MPOD equivalent to 1 : 1.4 : 1.4 : 0.5. Dorsal surface of tergum I 2.2 times wider than long.

Structure: Clypeus flat on center, somewhat depressed on lateral portions, with coarse striatiform punctures on apical two-thirds; clypeal apex concave, with distance between teeth a little smaller than interantennal distance; frons somewhat swollen, with striatiform punctures intermixed with micropunctures; cuticle around cephalic foveae slightly modified, with foveae delimited posteriorly by an evident and somewhat raised arclike carina; occipital carina strong and sharp, slightly angled on vertex; pronotal carina strong and complete, somewhat lamellar on dorsal surface, interrupted laterally below level of pronotal fovea and then continuous to mesopleural margin; pronotal fovea rounded, broad; dorsal surface of pronotum coarsely striatopunctate; humeral crest sharp especially anteriorly; lateral surface of pronotum depressed with scattered undefined and shallow punctures, reticulate; epicnemial carina strong; mesepisternum coarsely striatopunctate; mesoscutum coarsely striatopunctate, with space between punctures filled with somewhat sparse micropunctation; notauli well marked posteriorly; scutellum strongly punctured, with striatiform punctures restricted to lateral portions, less densely punctured medially where the micropunctures are densely concentrated; lateral crests of metanotum raised; metanotum coarsely striatopunctate, with raised and well-developed transversal crenation along apex of dorsal surface; apex of posterior surface of metanotum devoid of puctures; dorsal surface of propodeum coarsely striatopunctate becoming weaker and scattered on lateral surface; posterolateral angles of propodeum with a strongly pointed projection; posterior surface of propodeum mostly shiny and smooth, with scattered punctures on upper portion and obliquely striate on lower portion, delimited medially by a longitudinal sulcus on upper half and by a sharp carina on lower half; propodeal valvula strongly rounded and continuous with submarginal carina; metasoma with very weak punctures, separated by more than one puncture diameter, reticulate and dull; metasomal sternum II with somewhat stronger punctures than the rest of metasoma; terga I–II broader than long, tergum I with an apical shallow longitudinal furrow; base of sternum II with lateral humps slightly produced.

Paratype: Male.

Color: As in female, except for extensive yellow markings as follows: clypeus entirely; longitudinal line on scape beneath; broad pronotal band interrupted medially; a spot on upper mesepisternum; broad subapical transversal band on scutellum.

Dimensions: Body from frons to apex of tergum II = 10 mm. Forewing length = 9.1 mm. Width of gena equivalent to 0.9 times the width of eye at emargination. Proportion MOW : POD : OED : MPOD equivalent to 1 : 1.6 : 1.6 : 0.5. Dorsal surface of tergum I 2.5 times wider than long.

Structure: As in female, except as follows: clypeus with weak and sparse punctation; clypeal apex deeply concave; humeral crest stronger and somewhat lamellar anteriorly; lateral humps on base of sternum II somewhat more developed.

Etymology: The specific epithet (feminine) is the demonym applied to the native people of the Brazilian State where the type specimens where collected (Goiás).

Specimens Examined: Holotype: ♀, “Brasil, Goiás, Chapada dos Veadeiros, Fazenda Templo Terra, 14°10′38″S 47°38′33″W, 1220 m, 01.iv.2003, Melo, Aguiar, Marchi e Gonçalves.” Paratype: ♂, same data as holotype, except “02.iv.2003.” The holotype and the paratype are deposited at Coleção de Entomologia Pe. Jesus Santiago Moure, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná (DZUP), Curitiba, Brazil.

Additional Specimens Examined: Monobia insueta, 3♂ and 2♀, refs. HYM07926, HYM07927, HYM07928, HYM07929 and HYM07930. Monobia trifasciata: 2♂ and 2♀, refs. HYM07996, HYM07999 (Paratype), HYM08003 (Paratype) and HYM08004. These specimens are deposited in the Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, Argentina.

FIGURES 42–47. Monobia goiana. 42–43. Habitus: 42. Female; 43. Male. 44. Female mesosoma in dorsal view. 45–46. Head in frontal view: 45. Female; 46. Male. 47. Female metasoma in dorsal view. Scale bars for 42–43 = 3 mm; 44, 47 = 1 mm; 45–46 = 2 mm.

FIGURES 48–53. 48–50. Mb. insueta, female: 48. Pronotum and mesoscutum in dorsal view; 49. Terga I–II in dorsal view; 50. Sterna I–VI in ventral view. 51–52. Mb. trifasciata, female: 51. Head and pronotum in dorsal view; 52. Head and mesosoma in lateral view. 53. Mb. goiana, female head and pronotum in dorsal view. Scale bars for 48–49 = 1 mm; 50, 52 = 2 mm; 51, 53 = 1 mm.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Although a number of recent phylogenetic investigations have advanced our understanding of eumenine genera in the Neotropical Region (Willink and Roig-Alsina, 1998; Garcete-Barrett, 2003 [2002]; Hermes and Melo, 2008; Garcete-Barrett and Hermes, 2010; Hermes, 2010), higher-level relationships within the subfamily remain poorly known. Little attention has been paid to this extremely diverse and complex group, yet efforts like the one presented here may be helpful in resolving basic taxonomic problems, such as the placement of species whose generic limits are not clear.

The present study aims to resolve the limits between Monobia and Montezumia through cladistic analyses. Furthermore, almost all species groups proposed by Willink (1982) are corroborated as monophyletic. Although the monophyly of both genera (taking into account the new combinations proposed) is considered to be well established, as well as the naturalness of most of Willink’s species groups, the relationships among most of these groups remain to be discovered. In many cases, it was difficult to translate complex observations into discrete variables, so inclusion of new evidence to the present matrix (e.g., molecular data) would be most welcome.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Bolívar Garcete for insightful opinions during the course of this work. Vitor Nardino (Taxon Line Project, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná) kindly helped with the imaging of the specimens. Maria V.C. Correa, John Kochalka, and Bolívar Garcete kindly provided specimens under their care. M.G.H. was supported by CNPq (process 141964/2007-3) and CAPES (process BEX 3269/10-8). This forms contribution number 1845 of Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná.

REFERENCES

Bequaert, J. 1921. Description d’une espèce congolaise du genre Montezumia (Hyménoptères, Vespides). Revue Zoologique Africaine 9: 235–251.

Bequaert, J. 1940a. Monobia, Montezumia and Pachymenes, Neotropical elements in the Nearctic fauna (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 33: 95–102.

Bequaert, J. 1940b. Synopsis of Monobia, an American genus of solitary wasps (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Revista de Entomologia 11: 822–842.

Bertoni, A.W. 1918. Contribuición al conocimiento de los himenópteros diplópteros americanos. Anales Cientificos Paraguayos 2: 184–202.

Bohart, R.M. 1940. A revision of the North American species of Pterocheilus and notes on related genera (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 33: 162–208.

Bohart, R.M. 1951. Vespidae. In C.F.W. Muesebeck, K.V. Krombein, and H. Townes (editors), Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico. 875–907. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Bohart, R.M. 1982. Leucodynerus, a new genus of solitary wasps from western North America (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 55: 442–446.

Bohart, R.M. 1984. Gastrodynerus, a new genus of Eumenidae from western North America (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 60: 12–15.

Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10: 295–304.

Carpenter, J.M. 2004. Ancistroceroides de Saussure, a potter wasp genus new for the United States, with a new key to the genera of Eumeninae of America north of Mexico (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 77: 721–741.

Carpenter, J.M., and J.M. Cumming. 1985. A character analysis of the North American potter wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae; Eumeninae). Journal of Natural History 19: 877–916.

Carpenter, J.M., and B.R. Garcete-Barrett. 2003 (2002). A key to the neotropical genera of Eumeninae (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay 14: 52–73.

Carpenter, J.M., and B.R. Garcete-Barrett. 2005. Revision of the genus Parazumia de Saussure (Hymenoptera: Vespidae; Eumeninae). Folia Entomologica Mexicana 44: 21–34.

de Saussure, H.F. 1852–1853. Etudes sur la famille des vespides 1. Monographie des guêpes solitaires ou de la tribe des Eumeniens. Geneva: J. Cherbuliez.

de Saussure, H.F. 1875. Synopsis of American wasps. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 254: 1–392.

Fitch, W.N. 1971. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specified tree topology. Systematic Zoology 20: 406–416.

Garcete-Barrett, B.R. 1999. Guia ilustrada de las avispas sociales del Paraguay (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Polistinae). London: Natural History Museum, 44 pp.

Garcete-Barrett, B.R. 2003 (2002). La taxonomía del genero Cephalastor Soika (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae), parte II. Boletin del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay 14: 80–97.

Garcete-Barrett, B.R. 2011. A revision of the genus Stenonartonia Giordani Soika 1973 (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae). Zootaxa 2868: 1–50.

Garcete-Barrett, B.R., and M.G. Hermes. 2010. Two new species of Cephalastor Giordani Soika (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae), with a review of the phylogeny of the genus. Journal of Natural History 44: 1609–1630.

Giordani Soika, A. 1978. Revisione degli Eumenidi neotropicali appartenenti ai generi Eumenes Latr., Omicron (Sauss.), Pararhaphidoglossa Schulth. ed affini. Bolletino della Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia 29: 1–420.

Giordani Soika, A. 1990. Revisione degli Eumenidi neotropicali appartenenti ai generi Pachymenes Sauss., Santamenes n. gen., Brachymenes G.S., Pseudacaromenes G.S., Stenosigma G.S. e Gamma Zav. (Hymenoptera). Bolletino della Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia 39: 71–172.

Goloboff, P.A. 1993. Estimating character weights during tree search. Cladistics 9: 83–91.

Goloboff, P.A. 1999. Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: solutions for composite optima. Cladistics 15: 415–428.

Goloboff, P.A., et al. 2003. Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics 19: 324–332.

Goloboff, P.A., J.S. Farris, and K.C. Nixon. 2008a. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 24: 1–13.

Goloboff, P.A., J.M. Carpenter, J.S. Arias, and D.R.M. Esquivel. 2008b. Weighting against homoplasy improves phylogenetic analysis of morphological data sets. Cladistics 24: 758–773.

Hermes, M.G. 2010. A new eumenine wasp in the genus Pseudodynerus de Saussure (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae). Zootaxa 2441: 63–68.

Hermes, M.G., and G.A.R. Melo. 2008. Revision and cladistic analysis of the eumenine wasp genus Pseudodynerus de Saussure (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae). Systematic Entomology 33: 361–394.

Krombein, K.V. 1979. Superfamily Vespoidea. In K.V. Krombein, P.D. Hurd, D.R. Smith, and B.D. Bunks (editors), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico. 1469–1522. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Nixon, K.C. 1999. The Parsimony Ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15: 407–414.

Nixon, K.C. 2002. Winclada, version 1.45. Program and documentation available from the author.

Nixon, K.C., and J.M. Carpenter. 1993. On outgroups. Cladistics 9: 413–426.

Parker, F.D. 1966. A revision of the North American species in the genus Leptochilus (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae). Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America 5: 151–229.

Rodríguez-Palafox, A. 1996. Vespidae (Hymenoptera). In J. Llorente-Bousquets, A.N. Garcia-Aldrete, and E. González-Soriano (editors), Biodiversidad, taxonomia y biogeografia de artrópodos de México: hacia uma síntese de su conocimiento. 465–482. C.U. México: UNAM.

Snelling, R.R. 1975. A new North American genus of Eumenidae (Hymenoptera: Vespoidea). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 77: 56–58.

West-Eberhard, M. J., J. M. Carpenter and P. E. Hanson. 2006. Familia Vespidae. In P.E. Hanson and I. D. Gauld (editors), Hymenoptera de la región neotropical. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 77: 617–644.

Willink, A. 1967. Nuevos generos de Eumenidos neotropicales (Hymenoptera, Eumenidae). Acta Zoologica Lilloana 22: 143–156.

Willink, A. 1982. Revision de los generos Montezumia Saussure y Monobia Saussure (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae). Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias 55: 1–321.

Willink, A., and A. Roig-Alsina. 1998. Revision del genero Pachodynerus Saussure (Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Eumeninae). Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 30: 1–117.

Zavattari, E. 1912. Materialien für eine Monographie der neotropischen Eumeniden. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 78: 1–272.

[1] Laboratório de Biologia Comparada de Hymenoptera, Universidade Federal do Paraná, 81531-980 Curitiba, PR, Brasil.

[2] Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History.