Pompiloidea Latreille 1804
Creators: name: Fernández, Fernando
name: Rodriguez, Juanita
name: Waichert, Cecilia
name: Decker, Brenna
name: Pitts, James
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera

description: Pompiloidea in Aculeata
The superfamily Pompiloidea historically comprises the families Pompilidae and Rhopalosomatidae. Cladistic analyses of morphological data by Brothers & Carpenter (1993) and Brothers (1999) recovered Pompilidae as a member of the Vespoidea and most recently as sister to Rhopalosomatidae or Mutillidae + Sapygidae. Molecular phylogenetic analyses recovered Pompilidae as sister to Mutillidae (in part), Sapygidae and Myrmosinae (Pilgrim et al. 2008). This last study revived the superfamily Pompiloidea, including Pompilidae, Mutillidae, Sapygidae and Myrmosidae. Debevec et al. (2012) reached similar results in their exploration of the Aculeata phylogeny, with an emphasis on Apoidea. Johnson et al. (2013) established sister relationship between Pompilidae and Mutillidae and confirmed the paraphyly of Vespoidea sensu Brothers (1999). Peters et al. (2017) studied the evolutionary history of Hymenoptera using 3,256 protein-coding genes from 173 species. The position and composition of Pompiloidea was basically recovered as that of Johnson et al. (2013): Pompiloidea as sister of Tiphioidea + Thynnoidea, and within Pompiloidea, Pompilidae as sister to Sapygidae + Mutillidae (Myrmosidae were not included in this study). The same year, an analysis of genomewide Ultra-Conserved Elements (UCE), recovered the same topology as Peters et al. (2017) but included Myrmosidae, which is sister to Mutillidae (Branstetter et al. 2017).
Engel & Grimaldi (2006) described a Cretaceous specimen, which at the time was included in Pompilidae. Rodriguez et al. (2015a) showed that this fossil species was not a pompilid and belongs to a separate family: Bryopompilidae. This family is of uncertain affiliation within Aculeata. Rodriguez et al. (2017) reviewed the Pompilidae fossil fauna and confirmed Late Eocene as the oldest fossil record for the family. Later, Waichert et al. (2019b) described an older fossil specimen, shifting the origin of the family to the Ypresian, Early Eocene.
Pompilidae internal phylogeny
The phylogenetic relationship among the pompilid wasps has shown inconsistencies in the reconstruction attempts. Pitts et al. (2006) performed a morphological cladistic analysis based on the characters of Shimizu (1994) and proposed the relationships Ceropalinae + (Pepsinae + (Ctenocerinae + Pompilinae)). Notocyphinae was recovered as part of Pompilinae and Epipompilinae (in the sense of Shimizu 1994) was included within Ctenocerinae. The two synapomorphies for Pepsinae + (Ctenocerinae + Pompilinae) were: 1) the female antennae curling in dry specimens and 2) the acute transverse sulcus in the second sternum of the female metasoma. The apicoventral hairs of the apical hind tarsomerus, wide and flattened, were assumed to be plesiomorphic.
The most recent and extensive proposal on the exploration of pompilid internal phylogenetics corresponds to that of Waichert et al. (2015b), who used Bayesian (MB) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) analyses of four nuclear markers (elongation factor 1, long wavelength rhodopsin, RNA polymerase II, and 28S ribosomal RNA unit) to resolve the internal relationships of Pompilidae. These authors found that Ctenocerinae is the sister group of (Ceropalinae + Notocyphinae) + (Pompilinae + Pepsinae). The position of Ctenocerinae as a sister group to the rest of Pompilidae supports that of Pitts et al. (2006) of having a subfamily with kleptoparasitic wasps as the sister group to the rest of the family. The monophyly of Notocyphinae and its closeness to Ceropalinae were reaffirmed, and the two most diverse subfamilies (Pompilinae and Pepsinae) were recovered together in a single clade. The authors suggested a Nearctic origin of the group, about 47 million years ago, in the middle of the Cenozoic and an earlier diversification, between 35 and 25 million years ago. If this is correct, it implies, according to the authors, that these wasps diversified mostly by dispersal (and not by vicariance of continental masses) and that the decline in diversity from the Eocene—Oligocene did not affect the family (Waichert et al. 2015a).
Rodriguez et al. (2016b) explored the internal phylogeny of Pompilinae using five nuclear genes (28S ribosomal RNA unit, elongation factor 1, long wavelength rhodopsin, wingless, RNA polymerase II) from 76 taxa in 39 genera using ML and MB analyses. Aporini was the only pompiline tribe recovered as monophyletic. Some genera including Pompilus Fabricius 1798 are not monophyletic. Rodriguez et al. (2015b) studied the historical biogeography of the tribe Aporini, which originated in the Nearctic region and dispersed to other continents over the course of 22 million years.
Studies in the Neotropics
The Neotropical Region comprises 946 species in 63 genera and 4 subfamilies (Table 1). The North American Pompilidae are better understood, with about 300 known species in 40 genera (Goulet & Huber 1993). Banks’s treatment of the South American fauna (1945, 1946, 1947) is far from satisfactory and of limited utility. Bradley (1944) studied the fauna for what we now call Aporini. Evans (1966b, 1968a, 1968b) provided monographs of the Central American Pompilinae.
Since the historical works by Banks (1945, 1946, 1947) and Bradley (1944), some genera have been more critically studied: Irenangelus Schulz (Evans 1969c, 1987; Kimsey & Wasbauer 2004), Aporus Spinola (Evans 1973a), Psorthaspis Banks (Rodríguez et al. 2016a), Epipompilus Kohl (Evans 1967), Agenioideus Ashmead (Evans 1965), Anoplius Dufour (Evans 1969b; Pitts et al. 2017), Austrochares Banks (Evans 1969a), Neanoplius Banks (Pitts & Sadler 2019), Poecilopompilus Howard (Colomo de Correa 1998), Priochilus Banks (Wasbauer et al. 2017), Abernessia Arlé (Waichert & Pitts 2013; Oliveira et al. 2020), Adirostes Banks (Roig-Alsina 1986a), Aridestus Banks (Evans 1966a), Aimatocare Roig-Alsina (Roig-Alsina 1989), Caliadurgus Pate (Dreisbach 1961b; Roig-Alsina 1982b), Dipogon Fox (Evans 1974), Chirodamus Haliday (Evans 1968c; Roig-Alsina 1989), Eragenia Banks (Waichert et al. 2015a), Plagicurgus Roig-Alsina (Roig-Alsina 1982a), Pepsis Fabricius (Vardy 2000, 2002, 2005), Pompilocalus Roig-Alsina (Roig-Alsina 1989), Priocnemis Schiodte (Roig-Alsina 1986b), Priocnessus Banks (Dreisbach 1961a), Sphictostethus Kohl (Roig-Alsina 1987), Atopagenia Wasbauer (Wasbauer 1987), Auplopus Spinola (Dreisbach 1963), Dimorphagenia Evans and Mystacagenia Evans (Evans 1973b, 1980).
Waichert et al. (2012a) reviewed the fauna of the Dominican Republic. Waichert et al. (2014) listed the fauna of Honduras. Wahis (1995) offered notes on the Nicaraguan pompilid fauna. Fernández et al. (2017) offered a synopsis of the Colombian fauna; Castro et al. (2014) and Waichert et al. (2017) add new records for that country. For Argentina there are revisions for Entypus Dahlbom (Roig-Alsina 1981), Caliadurgus Pate (Roig-Alsina 1982b) and Tachypompilus Ashmead (Colomo de Correa 1987). Roig-Alsina (2005) offered new records and new species from Argentina. Waichert et al. (2018) reviewed the Ageniella from Brazil, see also Rapoza & Waichert (2022). Wahis & Rojas (2003) offered notes and a synopsis of the Chilean Pompilidae. Rasmussen & Ajenjo (2009) listed the wasps of Peru, including Pompilidae. Corro et al. (2011) listed the species of the Parque Nacional Darién in Panama.A new genus, Pompiliodon Wasbauer, was proposed by Wasbauer & Kimsey (2019) from French Guiana and Ecuador.Subfamily Ceropalinae (2)CeropalesLatreille, 1796 —15, NeotropicsIrenangelusSchulz, 1906 —12, NeotropicsSubfamily Notocyphinae (1)NotocyphusSmith, 1855 —71, NeotropicsSubfamily Pompilinae (32)Aporini (9)AllaporusBanks, 1933 —3, Mexico to Costa RicaAporusSpinola, 1808 —20, NeotropicsAporuss. s. —9, Central America and ColombiaCosmiaporusBradley, 1944 —2, Colombia, BrazilNeoplanicepsBradley, 1944 —6, West Indies, Central America to ColombiaNotoplanicepsBradley, 1944 —3, Trinidad, Panama to BrazilAspidaporusBradley, 1944 —1, BrazilChelaporusBradley, 1944 —1 MexicoDrepanaporusBradley, 1944 —3, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican RepublicEuplanicepsHaupt, 1930 —20, Central and South AmericaPsorthaspisBanks, 1919 —25, West Indies, Mexico to ColombiaRhabdaporusBradley, 1944 —1, BrazilTupiaporusArlé, 1947 —1, BrazilPompilini (19)AgenioideusAshmead, 1902 —5, NeotropicsAgenioideuss.s. —1, Central AmericaEnbanksiaEvans1965 —2, Costa Rica to ParaguayGymnocharesBanks, 1917 —1 Mexico to ColombiaRidestusBanks, 1912 —1, MexicoAllocharesBanks, 1917 —1, MexicoAmmosphexWilcke, 1942 —2, NeotropicsAnoplioidesHaupt, 1950 —1, ArgentinaAnopliusDufour, 1834 —73, NeotropicsAnopliodesBanks, 1939—4, NeotropicsAnopliuss.s. —13, NeotropicsArachnophroctonusHoward, 1901 —44, NeotropicsDicranopliusHaupt, 1950 —9, West Indies, South AmericaLophopompilusRadoszkowski, 1887 —3, Mexico, Guatemala, WestNotiocharesBanks, 1917 —3, Neotropics IndiesAplocharesBanks, 1944 —2, Honduras to BrazilAporinellusBanks, 1911 —5, NeotropicalArachnospilaKincaid, 1900 —6, Peru to ArgentinaAridestusBanks, 1947 —3, Andes, Paraguay to ArgentinaAustrocharesBanks, 1947 —5, South AmericaEpisyronSchiødte, 1837 —1, NeotropicsEvagetesLepeletier, 1845 —6, NeotropicsNeanopliusBanks, 1947 —1, BrazilParacyphononyxGribodo, 1884 —13, Central and South AmericaPoecilopompilusHoward, 1901 —9, NeotropicsTachypompilusAshmead, 1902 —13, NeotropicsXenanopliusHaupt, 1950 – 1, BrazilXenopompilusEvans, 1953 —2, Mexico to Costa RicaXerocharesEvans, 1951 —1, Mexico to ColombiaPriochilini (3)BraunillaWasbauer & Kimsey, 2019 —10, NeotropicsPompiliodonWasbauer, 2019 —1, Ecuador, French GuianaPriochilusBanks, 1944 —25, NeotropicsSericopompilini (1)SericopompilusAshmead, 1902 —1, Mexico to Costa RicaSubfamily Pepsinae (30)Pepsini (22)AbernessiaArlé, 1947—4, Paraguay, BrazilAdirostesBanks, 1946 —4, PeruAimatocareRoig-Alsina, 1989 —5, Tropical South AmericaAnacyphonyxBanks, 1946 —6, Brazil to ArgentinaCaliadurgusPate, 1946 —29, NeotropicsCalopompilusAshmead, 1900 —1, Guatemala, HondurasChirodamusHaliday, 1837 —5, Colombia to ArgentinaCryptocheilusPanzer, 1806 —5, Central America to ColombiaDipogonFox, 1897 —14, Dominican Republic, Mexico to ArgentinaEntypusDahlbom, 1843 —38, Colombia to ArgentinaEpipompilusKohl, 1884 —16, NeotropicsHemipepsisBradley, 1944 —3, Mexico to ColombiaHerbstellusWahis, 2002 —2, Chile and ArgentinaHypoferreolaAshmead, 1902 —1, ArgentinaLepidocnemisHaupt, 1930 —1, ArgentinaMinageniaBanks, 1934 —6, NeotropicsPepsisFabricius, 1805 —136, NeotropicsPlagicurgusRoig-Alsina, 1982 —2, Brazil and ArgentinaPompilocalusRoig-Alsina, 1989 —28, South AmericaPriocnemisSchiødte, 1837 —10, NeotropicsPriocnessusBanks, 1925 —36, NeotropicsSphictostethusKohl, 1884 —11, Southern South AmericaAgeniellini (8)AgeniellaBanks, 1912 —74, NeotropicsAgeniellas.s. —9, West Indies, Mexico to ColombiaAlasageniaBanks, 1944 —10, NeotropicsAmerageniaBanks, 1945 —28, NeotropicsCyrtageniaEvans, 1973 —2, Panama to Brazil, Peru to ArgentinaNemageniaBanks, 1944 —1, NeotropicsNeotumageniaFernández, 1998 —1, Colombia and Brazil, AmazonPriophanesBanks, 1944 —23, NeotropicsAtopageniaWasbauer, 1987 —1, Costa Rica and PanamaAuplopusSpinola, 1841 – 119, NeotropicsDimorphageniaEvans, 1973 —1, EcuadorErageniaBanks, 1946 —16, NeotropicsMystacageniaEvans, 1973 —5, Panama, Colombia, Brazil to PeruPhanageniaBanks, 1933 – 1, MexicoPriocnemellaBanks, 1925 —9, Neotropics
Few Neotropical species have known host and nesting behavior. Cambra et al. (2004) showed data on nest biology and new records from the Neotropics. Kurcsewski et al. (2020) offered a detailed list of spider wasps and their hosts for the New World, also adding to their distribution range. Other behavioral observations are found in Kimsey (1980), Wilson & Pitts (2007), Auko et al. (2013), Carvalho-Filho et al. (2015), Contreras & Téllez (2017), Santos et al. (2017), Rapoza et al. (2019), Quijano-Cuervo et al. (2020), and Falcón-Reibán et al. (2021).
Catalogs and keys
There is no taxonomic catalog for the Neotropical Pompilidae. Fernández (2000) offered a preliminary list of the species; Alayo (1969) treated the Ceropalinae and Pepsinae of Cuba; Wahis (2002) and Wahis & Rojas (2003) discussed the fauna of Chile; Snelling & Torres (2004) offer a synopsis of Puerto Rico and British Virgin Islands and Waichert et al. (2012a) discussed the Dominican Republic fauna.
Keys to the genera of Pompilinae were offered in Evans (1966b: Central America), Colomo de Correa (1981: Argentina) and Pitts & Sadler (2019: New World). Fernández (2006) offered a key for the Neotropical genera except Pepsini. Fernández et al. (2017) offered keys for the genera and species of several Colombian genera, which are useful for northern South America.
Synopsis and species list
As noted above, the taxonomy of several Pompilidae remains in a poor state of knowledge. A catalog is highly desirable, but due to the circumstances outlined above, there are still several problems to be solved in some critical groups to have a more stable taxonomy. For this reason, we believe that it is useful to offer an updated checklist of the subfamilies, tribes, genera and species of the Pompilidae described in the Neotropical Region, a region that includes Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and all of South America. The present list was made based on the available literature up to the present date, including published behavioral records. The supraspecific synopsis is provided in Table 1. Since there have been numerous tranfers between genus names in the family, Table 2 provides a quick list of synonyms. Table 3 lists the Pompilidae species in the Neotropical Region and includes described sexes (♀, ♂), known distribution, references to descriptions, revisions and/or keys of some taxa.PompilidaeCeropalidae Radozkowski, 1888 = Pompilidae Psammocharidae Banks, 1910 = PompilidaeCeropalinaeCeratopalesHoward, 1901 =CeropalesLatreilleEpipompilinae = Ctenoceratinae = PepsinaePepsinaeAbripepsisBanks, 1946 =PepsisFabriciusAgriogeniaBanks, 1919 =DipogonFoxAmerocnemisBanks, 1946 =AimatocareRoig-AlsinaAnapriocnemisHaupt, 1959 =SphictostethusKohlAuplopodini Haupt = AgenielliniAllageniellaHaupt, 1959 =AgeniellasubgenusAmerageniaBanksBrachyageniaHaupt, 1959 =AgeniellasubgenusAmerageniaBanksCalageniaBanks, 1934 =AuplopusSpinolaCalicurgusLepeletier, 1845 =CaliadurgusPateCalopompilusBanks, 1946 =AimatocareRoig-AlsinaCalopompilusBanks, 1946 =PompilocalusRoig-AlsinaCirripepsisBanks, 1945 =PepsisFabriciusCheilotusBradley, 1946 =EntypusDahlbomChirodamusTownes, 1951 =CalopompilusAshmeadChirodamus argentinicusgroup Evans, 1968 =AimatocareRoig-AlsinaCompsageniaHaupt, 1959 =MinageniaBanksCosmageniaHaupt, 1959 =PriocnemellaBanksDerochilusBanks, 1941 =CalopompilusAshmeadDeropepsisBanks, 1946 =PepsisFabriciusDinocnemisBanks, 1945 =CalopompilusAshmeadDinopepsisBanks, 1945 =PepsisFabriciusGigantopepsisLucas, 1919 =PepsisFabriciusHovageniaBanks 1941 =HemipepsisDahlbomLophageniaBanks, 1934 =AuplopusSpinolaMyrmecosaliusAshmead, 1903 =PriocnemisSchiødteNannochilusBanks, 1944 =MinageniaBanksNannopepsisBanks, 1945 =PepsisFabriciusOnocharesBanks, 1933 =CalopompilusAshmeadOvatopepsisHaupt =PepsisFabriciusParageniellaHaupt, 1959 =AgeniellasubgéneroAmerageniaBanksPriocnemioidesRadoszkowski, 1898 =EntypusDahlbomPseudageniaKohl, 1884 =AuplopusSpinolaPseudageniellaHaupt, 1959 =AgeniellasubgéneroAmerageniaBanksReedimiaBanks, 1946 =ChirodamusHalidayStenopepsisBanks, 1945 =PepsisFabriciusTrichopepsisBanks, 1945 =PepsisFabriciusTumageniaBanks, 1934 =AuplopusSpinolaXenopepsisArnold, 1932 =HemipepsisDahlbomCtenoceratinaeAulocostethusAshmead, 1902 =EpipompilusKohlEpiscothetusBanks, 1947 =EpipompilusKohlPompilinaeAnacyphonyxHaupt, 1950 =ParacyphononyxGribodoAnoplinellusBanks, 1934 =AnopliussubgenusArachnophroctonusHowardAporoideusAshmead, 1902 =AgenioideussubgenusAgenioideusAshmeadAnotocharesBanks, 1939 =ChalcocharesBanksArachnophroctonusAshmead, 1902 =TachypompilusAshmeadBatazonusHoward, 1901 =PoecilopompilusHowardCeratopompilusBradley, ???? =AporinellusBanksDycirtomalisBradley, 1944 =PsorthaspisBanksEubatazonusHaupt, 1950 =PoecilopompilusHowardNannopompilusAshmead, 1902 =EvagetesLepeletierOdontaporusBradley, 1944 =AporussubgenusAporusSpinolaParacyphonyxAshmead, 1902 =ParacyphononyxGribodoPompilinusAshmead, 1902 =AnopliussubgenusArachnophroctonusHowardPompiliodesRadoszkowski, 1887 =AnopliussubgenusAnopliusDufourPycnopompilusAshmead, 1902 =ArachnospilaKincaidSophropompilusHoward, 1901 =EvagetesLepeletierSpilopompilusAshmead, 1902 =EpysironSchiødte
Although the list has been based on the literature and in part on the experience of the authors, some species are probably left out, or some are still placed in genera to which they do not correspond. For some names it has not been possible to locate with certainty the author, the date of publication or the sex in which the new taxon is described.
We included records from behavioral observations as these studies have elucidated prey choice and nesting in the family, but poorly highlighted new range additions. Species recorded from Mexico were included in the list either when geographically reported from the Neotropical area, or when reported from Mexico, without state or coordinate distinction. In spite of these shortcomings, the list and references will be helpful to anyone interested in this intriguing family.
Notes on some names in the species list and taxonomic accounts
Pompilidae are a group that presents many taxonomic challenges. In preparing this list, it has been inevitable to find some inconsistencies, incomplete information, as well as synonyms and homonyms have been found. Some cases are listed below, although surely others are waiting to be discovered.
Notocyphus minimus Lucas, 1897 and Notocyphus minimus Banks, 1947, possible homonyms. We herein abstain from proposing new name because a revision of Notocyphus will be treated elsewhere.
Notocyphus restrictus Townes, 1957 described as a subspecies of Notocyphus dorsalis Cresson, 1872.
Auplopus esmeraldus (Banks, 1925) is treated as Auplopus esmeralda in Kimsey (1980).
Mystacagenia albiceps Evans, 1973. The following are new records for Costa Rica and Ecuador: COSTA RICA: Ala. 20 Km S Upala, 26.iii-12.iv.1991, F.D. Parker [coll.], 1♀ (Department of Biology Insect Collection, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, EMUS). ECUADOR: Napo, Misahualli nr. Tena, 6-19.x.2001, Mal. Tr., 1f (EMUS). Remarks. The species was previous know from Brazil and Peru (Evans 1973). This is the first record of the species from Central America, rising to three the number of species of Mystacagenia that occur in Central America, they are M. albiceps, M. elengatula, and M. kimseyae.
Phanagenia bombycina Cresson, 1867. New record for Mexico. MEXICO: 1 ♂, Chiapas, Municipio de San Cristobal de Las Casas. Hills of San Cristobal de Las Casas, 2194 m, viii-ix.1981, D.E. Breedlove (California Academy of Sciences, CASENT).
Remarks. Phanagenia bombycina is the only New World species of the genus, and has a Nearctic distribution in the continent (Townes 1957). San Cristobal de Las Casas, in Mexico, is the southernmost record of the species in the New World.
Priocnemella fuscomarginata (Fox, 1897). New record for Panama. PANAMA: 1 ♀, Las Cumbres, 12-18.ix.1982, H. Wolda [coll.] ground (Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, PMAE), 1 female, Cerro Azul, N of Tocumén, 7.vi.1958, W.J. Hanson coll. (EMUS).
Entypus coeruleus (Taschenberg, 1869), in Fernández (2000), and Entypus caeruleus (Linnaeus, 1758), in Waichert et. al. (2012a), are treated as Entypus taschenbergii (Dalla Torre, 1897) (see Roig-Alsina 1981).
Epipompilus jamaicensis Evans, 1976 is a nomen dubium.
Hypoferreola cephalotes (De Saussure, 1867) is a nomen dubium.
Anoplius (Arachnophroctonus) inculcatrix (Cameron, 1912) is treated with Cresson as author in Starr & Hook (2003).
Paracyphononyx diabolicus (Holmberg, 1881) must be Austrochares.
Priochilus captivum (Fabricius, 1804) must be placed in a different genus, either Anoplius or Paracyphononyx.
The diversity of spider wasps
With four subfamilies, 63 genera and 946 species, Pompilidae is a moderately-sized family within the stinging Hymenoptera (Aculeata) in the Neotropical region. In the neotropics Pompilidae are surpassed in diversity by Halictidae (1,004 species), Megachilidae (1,014 species), Crabronidae (1,304 species), Vespidae (1,330 species), Mutillidae (1,505 species), Apidae (1,536 species) and Formicidae (3,200 species).
In the World there are 254 valid genera (Loktionov & Lelej 2017) and 4,856 species (Aguiar et al. 2013) known for Pompilidae, within which the Neotropical fauna comprises 25% of the genera and 20% of the World’s species. The Neotropical fauna of Pompilidae is richer than that of the Australian (45 genera and 256 species: Elliot 2007), Nearctic (41 genera and 290 species: Brothers & Finnamore 1993) and Palearctic (55 genera and 650 species: Loktionov & Lelej 2015) regions.
In the Neotropical region, the subfamilies Pepsinae (30 genera and 589 species) and Pompilinae (30 genera and 259 species) are the largest, and the remaining two subfamilies Ceropalinae (2 genera and 27 species) and Notocyphinae (1 genus and 71 species) comprise a modest number of species (Figures 1 and 2). Most genera have low diversity, and few are better represented. Taking the number of 25 species as an arbitrary level, the most diverse genera are Pompilocalus (28), Caliadurgus (29), Priocnessus (36), Notocyphus (71), Anoplius (73), Ageniella (74), Auplopus (119) and Pepsis (136) (Figure 1).
Nonetheless, a discussion on generic or specific diversity in Pompilidae should be taken with caution. As has been pointed out by taxonomists such as Evans (1977) or Vardy (2000), the separation of genera and species in this family is notoriously difficult due to the scarcity of external morphology traits to delimit taxa. Only in recent years have molecular phylogeny studies unraveled the phylogeny and internal relationships within the pompilid family and subfamilies (Waichert et al. 2015b; Rodríguez et al. 2016b). There is still much to do, especially at the species level, with many important and diverse genera in which there are no recent studies that incorporate genes to explore the internal diversity. A good example is Notocyphus, a genus without revision and for which there are many collected specimens that do not conform to the already obsolete descriptions or updated keys. The same situation occurs in Anoplius, Auplopus and many other genera.
The difficulty in sex-association (e.g. Evans 1968c) has resulted in fragmented information on sexes for different species. This is caused either by strong sexual dimorphism or morphological uniformity. There is information on both sexes for only 418 species, females are known for 777 species whereas males are known for 550 species. There is no information on either sex for 52 of the species (Table 3). Current molecular tools and access to DNA in dry collections specimens show promise in accurately establishing sex-associations.
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
The biology, diversity of behavior associated with hunting spiders, patterns of mimicry and biogeography of Pompilidae are fascinating. In order to better understand their evolution, we need a solid systematics base that must include monographs and user-friendly identification guides and keys. With this information, we would reach a better understanding on the diversity and evolution of this group in the Neotropical region.
description: Published as part of Fernández, Fernando, Rodriguez, Juanita, Waichert, Cecilia, Decker, Brenna & Pitts, James, 2022, Twenty two years later: An updated checklist of Neotropical spider wasps (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae), pp. 451-503 in Zootaxa 5116 (4) on pages 452-497, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5116.4.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6375310