Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes


TaxonomyBrowse
Info
ImagesLinksBooksData

Species Megarhyssa macrurus

Long Tail - Megarhyssa macrurus - female Winged bug on a stump... what is it? - Megarhyssa macrurus Winged bug on a stump... what is it? - Megarhyssa macrurus - female Do I see a Mayfly or another species?  - Megarhyssa macrurus Giant Ichneumon (ovipositing) - Megarhyssa macrurus - female stephanidae wasp ?? - Megarhyssa macrurus Dragonfly? - Megarhyssa macrurus - male Giant Ichneumon - Megarhyssa macrurus - female
Classification
Kingdom Animalia (Animals)
Phylum Arthropoda (Arthropods)
Subphylum Hexapoda (Hexapods)
Class Insecta (Insects)
Order Hymenoptera (Ants, Bees, Wasps and Sawflies)
No Taxon ("Parasitica" (parasitic Apocrita))
Superfamily Ichneumonoidea (Braconids and Ichneumons)
Family Ichneumonidae (Ichneumon Wasps)
Subfamily Rhyssinae
Genus Megarhyssa (Giant Ichneumons)
Species macrurus (Megarhyssa macrurus)
Synonyms and other taxonomic changes
First described in 1771 by Carolus Linnaeus as Ichneumon macrurus
Explanation of Names
macrurus is from Greek makros (μακρος)- "long" + oura (ουρα)- tail
Food
It parasitizes Pigeon tremex, Tremex columba
Remarks
Townes, who was knowledgeable of Latin and Greek, interpreted the name macrurus as a noun, which is implied by his his use of the new combination Megarhyssa macrurus in his 1944/45 catalog as well as in his 1960 treatment of the North American species of Megarhyssa. This is consistent with the above explanation of the name. Unfortunately, some recent papers have unjustifiably begun citing the combination as Megarhyssa macrura, apparently following the unjustified use of that combination in the Taxapad database. I (RWC) see no reasonable argument for treating the name as anything other than a noun, but even if it could be argued that Linnaeus might have intended the name as adjectival (which I doubt), it seems to me that Townes treatment of the name as a noun has first revisor status.