Mischocyttarus injucundus
Creators: name: Silveira, Orlando Tobias
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2006
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Vespidae
Mischocyttarus
Mischocyttarus injucundus

description: Group of Mischocyttarus injucundus (de Saussure)   
 The next two species represent (in reduced form) what Richards (1978) called the M. injucundus species group. He continued the splitting process initiated by Ducke (1918) with the recognition of the new variety M. injucundus var. bertonii. Richards (1978) added more three names, one of them at the subspecies level. His scheme had the following constitution: M. bertonii described from Paraguay as variety by Ducke (1918), and first recognized as a species by Zikán (1949); M. jucundus a new species based on a single specimen from Manaus, AM, Brazil; M. juruanus another new species also based on a single specimen from Rio Juruá, AM; and finally M. injucundus (de Saussure) with two subspecies besides the nominate one, M. injucundus bimarginatus (Cameron) and M. injucundus tingomariae, the latter described on the base of various specimens from Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia.   
 Richards’ scheme is inadequate in face of character´ distributions being more complex than previously envisioned. An earlier treatment (Silveira, 2000; unpublished) tentatively considered three major groups of forms: one occurring on the extreme north­northeastern parts of South America corresponding to typical M. injucundus, another group in centralsouthern regions of the continent corresponding to M. bertonii, and finally a third group widely distributed across Amazon Basin and reaching sub Andean regions corresponding to the names juruanus, jucundus and tingomariae. However, characters supposedly diagnostic of this latter group proved to be inconsistent in respect to M. injucundus when additional specimens from Amapá and Maranhão were examined, so Richards´ three names above are here considered synonyms of M. injucundus (de Saussure). In addition, the subspecific status conferred by Richards (1978) to Polybia bimarginata Cameron from Guyana and Trinidad is not justified, since the supposed color differences are not larger than variation observed within typical injucundus.   
 Recent checking of the designation by Richards (1978) of the lectotype of this species, as well as its depository resulted in unexpected problems, as noted by Carpenter (1999). In the description of Polybia injucunda, H. de Saussure (1854: 200) indicated the Massimiliano Spinola Collection in Turin as the only depository of the specimens, without mentioning the Paris Museum (MNHN). Richards (1978) (but not Richards, 1945) committed mistakes in quoting de Saussure’s work, as well as in reproducing collecting data of the lectotype, errors that were partially corrected in the 1983 errata et addenda to the 1978 book. Carpenter (1999) did not find the lectotype in the Paris MNHN, and also could not find citations to the species in the catalogue of the Spinola collection by Casolari and Casolari Moreno (1978, 1979). Actually, the only name in the catalogue (related to Megacanthopus Ducke) is the epithet “ infidens ”, indeed of de Saussure’s authorship but never published, and referring to a specimen from Tampico, Mexico. However, Carpenter evidently could not see in the catalogue the citation of the name injucunda coming from the same “escatola 106” as infidens, but under the generic name “Rhopalidia Lepeletier”. The numeric codes in the catalogue associated with the name injucunda are 40 (de Saussure authorship), 180 (Pará, the locality), 33 (Ghiliani, the collector of the specimens), and 3 (the number of specimens). So according to Casolari and Casolari Moreno (1978, 1979), the types of Polybia injucunda are deposited in Spinola’s collection in the “Museo Regionale de Scienze Naturali” of the University of Turin (MIZT).   
 Richards apparently never saw specimens of Polybia injucunda from Spinola’s collection. In his revisions of 1945 and 1978, he does not mention loans or visits to the University of Turin. However, there seems to be no doubt as to the identity of de Saussure’s Polybia injucunda among the named forms in this species group. The concept presented by Richards (1978) for the nominate subspecies corresponds very well to the form usually found in the proximity of the city of Belém, which earlier authors simply cited as “Pará”. The travel of V. Ghiliani (collector of the specimens described by de Saussure) to Brazil in 1846 is mentioned in Papavero (1973: 342). He stayed for three months in Belém before returning to Italy, which imparts confidence about the specific locality of collecting.
description: Published as part of Silveira, Orlando Tobias, 2006, Revision of the subgenus Kappa de Saussure of Mischocyttarus de Saussure (Hym.; Vespidae, Polistinae, Mischocyttarini), pp. 1-108 in Zootaxa 1321 (1) on pages 91-92, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.1321.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5071103