Showing papers on "Vespoidea published in 1966"

The Behavior Patterns of Solitary Wasps

Abstract: Some of the more conspicuous features of wasp behavior were reported more than two centuries ago, but it was not until the publication of the first volume of Fabre's Souvenirs Entomotogiques in 1879 (66) that the attractive­ ness of this field of investigation became widely apparent. The classic work of Fabre and those of Ferton (68), Adlerz (1), G. W. & E. G. Peckham (159), and P. & N. Rau (173) are widely known and have provided a broad founda­ tion for the natural history of wasps. More recently, the influence of the "European school" of ethologists, exemplified particularly by Tinbergen and Baerends, has been strongly felt. In a sense, the modern era of wasp ethology may be said to have begun with Baerends' extended study of Ammophila pubescens Curtis in 1941 (5) and with Iwata's "Comparative Studies on the Habits of Solitary Wasps" in 1942 (88), for both of these papers have had an important impact on research in this field in the past 25 years. These two papers are accepted as points of departure for the present review; these and other papers cited below contain bibliographies which collectively cover much of the very extensive literature in this field. I have omitted mention of many strictly descriptive studies, not because these are unimportant as contributing to the comparative ethology of wasps, but simply because a very large volume would be needed to survey this field fully. Attention will here be directed to behavior patterns common to all solitary wasps (more especially to fossorial species) and to some of the important questions being asked about them by contemporary workers. I have omitted consideration of wasps parasitic upon other wasps, including both parasitoids (such as M utillidae) and cleptoparasites (c1epto­ bionts, arbeitsparasiten) [such as Evagetes and Ceropales in the Pompilidae, Nysson and Stizoides in the Sphecidae (30, 37, 63, 73, 156, 220)]. Solitary wasps are defined as species in which there is no cooperation involving divis­ ion of labor between mothers and daughters or between females of the same gener ation. All social wasps belong to a portion of the superfamily Vespoidea, to the family Vespidae as defined by Richards (177); he regards the social wasps as probably monophyletic, although this opinion has not been univer­ sally accepted in the past. The nonparasitic solitary wasps considered here belong to seven families commonly placed in five superfamilies, as follows: Bethyloidea: Bethylidae; Scolioidea: Tiphiidae, Scoliidae; Vespoidea:

The ant genus simopelta (hymenoptera: formicidae)

Abstract: The taxonomic history of Simopelta (subfamily Ponerinae, tribe Ponerini) has been discussed in detail by W. M. Wheeler (I935) and by Borgmeier (I95O). Borgmeier was the first to describe the queen of any species in the genus that of S. peryandei-which he showed deserved to be called \"dichthadiiform\", or belonging to a particular form of queen caste characterized by extreme reduction or loss of eyes, loss of wings, hypertrophy of petiole and gaster, and other characters. He explained its \"great similarity to certain females of Eciton\" by \"convergence in its hypogaeic way o,f life\", a statement that is puzzling because, as Father Borgmeier well knows, .Eciton is. not really \"hypogaeic\" in its habits, at least as compared to the majority of ants that spend most of their time on or below the ground level. _At any rate, as we shall show in this paper, the. convergence between the queens of at least one Simopelta species and certain army ants, so discerningly noted by Father Borgmeier, is only one aspect of the army-ant or legionary lifeform that two and perhaps all Simopelta species share with the \"true\" army ants of subfamily Dorylinae. It is the purpose of this contribution to list and key the workers of the knmvn species of Simopelta, to describe two new species of the genus, and to set forth on the behavior of one species some o.bservations, however fragmentary, that will establish that it follows the army-ant way of life in important respects.

The rediscovery of Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) yogi Wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).

Abstract: the basis for the treatment of yogi in The Ants of North America (2). Unfortunately, one of the key features chosen (the length of the antennal scape) was incorrectly described by Wheeler; hence the key for yogi in the above publication is confusing rather than helpful. It appears that yogi has been saved from even greater confusion only because so little additional material has been taken. In 2958 F. Raney found a few specimens at the Oak Creek Ranger Station in San Diego County, California. In 1963 the junior author took three colonies of yogi at Etiwanda, in San Bernardino County, California. The se.fior author at first refused to believe that this material could be yogi because it so. obviously failed to, agree with SVheeler’s descriptio.n. Then, in 1964, the two types .of yogi were discovered in the collection of the American Museum of Natural History. These established the fact that the Oak Creek and Etiwanda specimens are yogi. Several of the shortcomings of Wheeler’s description can be, attributed to his attempt to relate yogi to the subgenus Co[obopsis. Whether he realized it or not, Wheeler described important features of the head of the major of yogi from a position where it most closely resembled that of a Colobopsis major. That is to say, the head was not viewed in full face. but tilted forward until the truncated anterior portion and the mandibles were barely visible. There is no possible doubt about this for the. \"broadly excised posterior border\" which SVheeler described for the head of the’ yogi major