Sphaeropthalma megagnathos Schuster 1958
Creators: name: Pitts, James P.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2006
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Mutillidae
Sphaeropthalma
Sphaeropthalma megagnathos

description: Sphaeropthalma megagnathos Schuster
Sphaeropthalma (Photopsis) megagnathos megagnathos Schuster, 1958. Ent. Amer. (n. s.) 37: 36. Male. Holotype: Arizona, Ehrenberg, 27.Apr.1939, coll. F.H. Parker (UMSP). Sphaeropthalma (Photopsis) megagnathos aurifera Schuster, 1958. Ent. Amer. (n. s.) 37: 36. Male. Holotype: Arizona, Tinajas Atlas Mountains, 1905, coll. W.J. McGee (UMSP). New Synonym.
Diagnosis of male
The male of S. megagnathos can be separated easily from all other Sphaeropthalma species by mandibular morphology; the mandibles are very broadly dilated, especially ventral portion apically, distally much wider than width at ventral angulation, the ventral basal tooth of the mandible is small, and the apex is vertical (Fig. 7). This species also has the following combination of characters. The head is long and parallel posteriorly, the clypeus is very deeply depressed below the dorsal mandibular margin, the mesosternum lacks tubercles, wings yellowish­hyaline, the sternal felt line is absent. The genitalic morphology also is diagnostic (Figs. 17–19). In some specimens the coloration of the integument setae is bright orange, although setal coloration varies from orange to white (Fig. 29).
Female. Unknown.
Distribution
Arizona, California, and Nevada.
Material examined
USA: California: Los Angeles Co., Mint Canyon, 1, 22.Jun.1949, coll. L.W. Isaak (UCDC); Inyo Co.: 4 mi W Big Pine, 1, 18.Jun.1961, coll. J.S. Buckett (UCDC); 9 mi W Lone Pine, 1, 19.Jul.1961, coll. P.D. Hurd & J. Powell (EMUS); Rovanna Bishop, 1, 23.Jul.1964, coll. R. Kurtak (CDFA); Surprise Canyon, 1, 9.May.1958, coll. L.A. Stange (UCDC); Saline Valley, Upper Warm Spring, 1, 25.May.1976, coll. D. Giuliani (LACM); Willow Creek, Inyo Mts., 1, 3.May.1976, coll. D. Giuliani (LACM); Imperial Co., Glamis, 1, 23.Apr.1970, coll. A.R. Hardy & J.W. Prichard (LACM); Mono Co., 7 mi S Benton Insp. Sta., 2, 9.Aug.1962, coll. T. Kono & S. Boxton (CDFA, EMUS); Riverside Co.: Corn Springs, 5 mi S Desert Center, 2, 24.Jun.2004, coll. K.A. Williams (KAWC); Corn Springs, 10 mi S Desert Center, 6, 29.May.2005, coll. K.A. & E.E. Williams (KAWC); Palm Springs: 1, 14.May.1933 (UMSP), 1, 6.Jun.1932 (UMSP), 3, 24.Aug.1932 (UMSP, UAIC); Whitewater Canyon, 6, 6.May.1997 (UCRC); San Diego Co.: Borego, 1, 27.Apr.1955, coll. R. Schuster (UCDC); Scissors Crossing, 1, 1.Jun.1972, coll. D.A. Young (UCRC); Scissors Crossing Valley de San Felipe, 1, 4.May.1968, coll. E.M. Bellet (UCRC); jct Hwys 78 & 53, 1, 18.Aug.1987, coll. GC Snelling (LACM). Nevada: Clark Co., Callville Bay, 1, 29.Apr.1998, coll. C. Schultz and K. Receveur (EMUS).
Remarks
Mickel (1974) questioned the validity of Schuster’s (1958) subspecies, but was unable to compare their genitalia and left the question open. Study of the genitalia has revealed no substantial differences. Furthermore, the two subspecies have overlapping ranges. As such, retaining subspecies designations is unnecessary. Within this species setal coloration varies from white to a deep, golden­orange. The orangish specimens of S. megagnathos could easily be confused with S. luiseno Schuster or S. contracta Blake based on coloration. They are not easily confused morphologically; S. luiseno has large projections bearing long, curved setae on the middle and hind coxae and S. contracta has much smaller ocelli and different genitalic morphology (see Pitts et al. 2004).
description: Published as part of Pitts, James P., 2006, Review of the Sphaeropthalma imperialis species­group (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae), with descriptions of females and taxonomic notes, pp. 1-20 in Zootaxa 1248 on pages 17-18, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.1248.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/172963