DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15389050
title: TABLE 1 in A new genus and species of the subfamily Laphyragoginae (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Crabronidae) with analysis of the relationship of Eremiaspheciinae and Laphyragoginae, stat. resurr.

description: TABLE 1. The synapomorphies of Laphyragogoni and Eremiaspheciini according to Prentice (1998).
Shared features according to PrenticeCommentsHead strongly prognathousPrognathous head only in some EremiaspheciumDorsal lobe of clypeus only slightly produced dorsallyThis is typical of most Crabronidae. The shape of the clypeus, however, is sharply different in Laphyragogus and EremiaspheciumClypeal free margin simple (Eremiasphecium bears a sharp angulation just laterally of labrum)Clypeal free margin convex in Laphyragogus, in Eremiasphecium concave and delimited laterally by acute cornersEye inner margin distinctly concaveThis is only true for Laphyragogus, in Eremiasphecium concavity minimalOcciput well excavated as seen in dorsal viewThis is typical of most CrabronidaeHypostomal carina poorly developed or absentWell-developed in Laphyragogus and some EremiaspheciumHypostomal pocket open posteriorlyIn Eremiasphecium clearly delimitedVertexal apodeme absentThis is typical of many CrabronidaeScape shortIn most Eremiasphecium clearly elongatePreapical mandibular tooth absent Mandibles long and narrowPreapical mandibular tooth really absent, but shape of mandibles differs—more robust, curved, with angular tooth on externoventral margin, with one or two subbasal teeth on inner margin in Laphyragogus and simple, thin and very long in EremiaspheciumProboscis moderately lengthenedThis condition is not fully definedPronotal ridge well developedPronotal ridge in Eremiasphecium widely varyingProsternal pit presentAbsent in both taxaNotaulus present, corresponding internal notaular ridge presentLacking in some EremiaspheciumPosterior portion of mesopleural area gently concaveThis is typical of many CrabronidaeMesepisternal sulcus fully developed, other primary mesopleural sulci lackingScrobal sulcus often well developedMesopleural flange poorly developed or absentThis is not correct, mesopleural flange well definedOmaulus absentThis is typical of many CrabronidaeLower metapleural-propodeal suture indicated by a discrete change in sculptureNo in both taxaIntercoxal carina absentAbsent in both taxaMetasternal area very narrow anteriorly, forming a discrete median longitudinal metasternal carina, or metasternal area well removed from mesosternal planeMetasternal area large in Laphyragogus, very narrow in EremiaspheciumMidcoxal cavities closely setNot closely set in LaphyragogusPropodeum moderately longThis is typical of many CrabronidaeMetapostnotum broad, roughly U-shapedMetapostnotum of Laphyragogus and Eremiasphecium are different, not or slightly separated in EremiaspheciumMidtibia with single apical spur Posteroapical angle of forebasitarsus expandedThis is typical of most Crabronidae Indeed expanded in Laphyragogus and elongate in Eremiasphecium. The similar shape of the forebasitarsus has an independent origin (homoplasy), because the conspicuous process of the forebasitarsus is developed only in the females of Laphyragogus (it is absent in the males), whereas in Eremiasphecium the process is developed in both sexes, i.e. the formation of the process has a different genetic origin. The forebasitarsal lobe is formed in Laphyragogus by displacement of the articulation with tarsomere 2 towards the base (Figs 1–2), and in Eremiasphecium by elongation of the outer forebasitarsal apex (Figs 3–4). This can be seen when comparing the length of the male and female basitarsus. In addition, the Eremiasphecium process has a distinct constriction at the base. Apparently, the process evolved independently in these two taxa as an adaptation for digging in the soft soil of the desert environment. The shape and position of the digging spines on forebasitarsus are remarkably different in these two genera, supporting the hypothesis of homoplasy: in Eremiasphecium the spines are relatively sparse and do not occur on the inner margin of the process, whereas in Laphyragogus they are numerous and extend to the inner margin of the process. Moreover, the displacement of the articulation with tarsomere 2 towards the base with formed lobe is not unique to Laphyragogus and is found in some other desert wasps—a similar expansion is found, for example, in Parapsammophila Taschenberg (Sphecidae) (Fig. 7) and some Stizoides Guérin-Méneville (Crabronidae) (Figs 5–6). It is therefore incorrect to accept the external similarity in the structure of the foretarsus of Eremiaspheciinae and Laphyragoginae as a unique apomophy.Fore tarsal rake composed of long spinesThis is typical of desert wasps from different groupsPretarsal claws simpleIn Eremiasphecium сlaws in many species with toothWings quite clear with light veinsThis is typical of wasps of arid areas from different groupsMarginal cell truncate or narrowly truncate on apexShape of marginal cell in Eremiasphecium varying, but not as in LaphyragogusThree submarginal cells presentIn Eremiasphecium venation modified, second submarginal cell usually subtriangular or petiolate, in some species number of submarginal cells reduced to two. In Laphyragogus venation complete and generalized.Forewing cu-a prefurcalThis is typical of many Crabronidae but in some Eremiasphecium nearly interstitialHindwing R1 extending the entire length of the hamuliThis is typical of many Crabronidae from different groupsMetasoma sessileThis is typical of most Crabronidae, but metasomal base in Laphyragogus wide, and in Eremiasphecium narrowInternal first tergal ridge presentAbsent in both taxaFemale pygidial plate presentThis is typical of many Crabronidae from different groupsLateral gradulus of S1 lackingThis is typical of many Crabronidae from different groupsVolsella differentiated into digitus and cuspisThis is typical of many Crabronidae, genitals conspicuously different in Laphyragogus and Eremiasphecium
......continued on the next page
......continued on the next page
description: Published as part of Mokrousov, Mikhail V. & Proshchalykin, Maxim Yu., 2025, A new genus and species of the subfamily Laphyragoginae (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Crabronidae) with analysis of the relationship of Eremiaspheciinae and Laphyragoginae, stat. resurr., pp. 522-524 in Zootaxa 5631 (3) on page 522, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5631.3.6, http://zenodo.org/record/15370958