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

Upcoming Events

National Moth Week photos of insects and people. Here's how to add your images.

Photos of insects and people from the 2019 BugGuide Gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Discussion, insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29

Photos of insects and people from the 2015 gathering in Wisconsin, July 10-12

Photos of insects and people from the 2014 gathering in Virginia, June 4-7.

Photos of insects and people from the 2013 gathering in Arizona, July 25-28

Photos of insects and people from the 2012 gathering in Alabama

Photos of insects and people from the 2011 gathering in Iowa

Caliadurgus in place of Calicurgus (Hymenoptera:Pompilidae)

I'm not quite as informed on this change in genus name as I was with Calopompilus, and who knows, it might change again. The holarctic species now known as Caliadurgus hyalinatus by recent workers has rather recently gone by three names: the one in current use, Caliadurgus fasciatellus, and Calicurgus hyalinatus. I think the problem was agreement of the type specimens. I think the type designated for the genus Calicurgus was determined not to be the type specimen for what we now call Caliadurgus hyalinatus, but is the type some other species of wasp. The type was therefore redesignated with the next oldest type specimen, a wasp that was described by Pate under the genus name Caliadurgus. Unfortunately I retraced this from the two listed type-specimens in Krombein et al. (1979), as I could not find the literature explaining the change. Evidently it is valid because in one of the most recent papers on spider wasp phylogeny Dr. Pitts (Utah State University) and Dr. Wasbauer(retired, but still doing research and the world expert on spider wasps) use it in their paper. However, still lists the genus Calicurgus as a valid name. I regret that I can't elaborate any more but I think a consensus should lead the name to being changed in the guide. However, I also think if even one person disagrees it probably should be left as Calicurgus until I can find more information, since I wouldn't be able to adequately defend my position at the moment.

I was able to find the most recent literature possible on this genus and species of wasp. Type specimens are often horrible to deal with since they sometimes don't match our current application of a given name. M.C Day (1979, Nomenclatorial studies on the British Pompilidae, Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. p.7-8) gives reasoning for the use of Caliadurgus. The type that had been in use for some time, for Calicurgus, was called Sphex hyalinatus by Fabricius. However, Day remarks that this is actually a species of Priocnemis (in the current sense of that genus) and should be designated as such. A worker by the name of Pate proposed a new genus name Caliadurgus with the type species being Priocnemis fasciatellus. For those who don't know Priocnemis is very similar to Caliadurgus, and the latter genus was often not distinguished from the former. Day had designated this specimen, from the Spinola collection, the type. I could be wrong, but in my opinion the epithet "hyalinatus" should have no association with the current valid genus, Caliadurgus. This type species should be treated just as any other species where the genus has been changed. Therefore, I think the best name and probably the most correct current name is Caliadurgus fasciatellus (Spinola). The names in the guide have been changed accordingly.
My impression is that Nomina Nearctica was chosen as our taxonomic reference for its completeness rather than its cutting-edge taxonomic scholarship. After all, it's really just the online manifestation of a 1998 publication.

Whenever we find a similarly comprehensive but more up-todate reference for a taxonomic group, we adopt it for that group. That way, we can always come up with a name for any given taxon in a pinch, but where we have better information we can use that too

Is that site static or does it get edited? That's interesting to me because the name was changed well after 1998. I'm basically trying to do what you describe in your second paragraph, I just don't have the original literature so I thought my argument sounded a little weak. Thanks for the comments Chuck.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.