Eumenes sareptanus Andre , 1884

van Achterberg, Cornelis, Smit, John T. & Ljubomirov, Toshko, 2023, Review of the European Eumenes Latreille (Hymenoptera, Vespidae) using morphology and DNA barcodes, with an illustrated key to species, ZooKeys 1143, pp. 93-163 : 93

Eumenes sareptanus Andre, 1884

Figs 208-215 , 216-226

Eumenes sareptanus André, 1884: 638; Tobias and Kurzenko 1978: 160; Arens 2012: 486; Neumeyer 2014: 367, 2019: 275; Cassar et al. 2022: 208.

Eumenes (Eumenes) sareptanus sareptanus ; van der Vecht and Fischer 1972: 133 (literature before 1972).

Eumenes sareptanus sareptanus ; Gusenleitner 1972: 108-109, 2013: 28; Dal Pos et al. 2022: 16.

Eumenes (Eumenes) sareptanus ; Fateryga 2017: 182, 2018: 208.

Eumenes pomiformis f. insolata Müller, 1923: 627; Fateryga 2017: 182 (as synonym of E. sareptanus ).

Eumenes (Eumenes) sareptanus insolatus ; van der Vecht and Fischer 1972: 133 (literature before 1972); Castro 1992: 25, 30 (as synonym of E. dubius ).

Eumenes sareptanus insolatus ; Gusenleitner 1972: 180; Schmid-Egger and Schmidt 2002: 18; Schmid-Egger 2010: 23.

Eumenes dubius sareptanus var. germanica Blüthgen, 1938: 469, 474, 495; van der Vecht and Fischer 1972: 133 (as synonym of E. sareptanus insolatus ; literature before 1972); Fateryga 2017: 182 (as synonym of E. sareptanus ).

Eumenes dubius crimensis Blüthgen, 1938: 468-469; van der Vecht and Fischer 1972: 127.

Eumenes (Eumenes) crimensis ; Gusenleitner 2013: 27; Fateryga 2017: 181, 2018: 205-206; Dal Pos et al. 2022: 15.

Eumenes sareptanus scabrosus ; Fateryga 2017: 181 (as synonym of E. crimensis ).

Notes.

Castro (1992) concluded that traditional characters do not suffice to separate E. sareptanus from E. dubius after studying a large series of Spanish specimens. The observed variation is considered to be clinal and connected to climatic conditions (indicated by latitude and altitude). Therefore, both Castro (1992) and Gereys (2016) consider all European specimens of E. sareptanus and E. dubius conspecific, with the latter as oldest and thus valid name. It is obvious that with the differences used in existing keys both species are not well separable, this is especially the case for the females. The apical antennal hook of E. sareptanus is generally more slender than in E. dubius (Figs 224 , 226 versus Figs 89 , 92 ), albeit that the difference is less obvious in part of the SW European males. Traditionally, E. sareptanus is separated from E. dubius by having the setae of the mesoscutum about as long as apical width of scape and the apical lamella of the second tergite longer than height of the preapical vertical depression of the tergite. In this paper we propose a different combination of characters, but it is obvious (also from the molecular data presented in Schmid-Egger and Schmidt (2021)) that both are valid species. More research is needed to clear up the interrelations in the group of E. dubius (viz., E. dubius , Eumenes sareptanus , Eumenes cyrenaicus ).

Blüthgen (1938) described Eumenes dubius crimensis from Crimea (Jalta; only ♀-holotype and a ♂-paratype) mainly based on the coarser punctation of the mesoscutum ("Punktierung des Thorax grob, überwiegend met deutlichen, glatten, glänzenden Punktzwischenräumen, ….”) and length of its setae (intermediate between typical E. sareptanus (long setae) and typical E. dubius (short setae)). Gusenleitner (1972) examined a series from Crimea that contains only typical E. dubius specimens. In addition, he has seen specimens from Kopet Dag (= the border area of Turkmenistan and Iran) that fit better with the original description than specimens from Crimea. Fateryga (2018) agrees that these are different from the Crimean specimens and the specimens reported as E. crimensis from Iran, C Asia and Kazakhstan likely belong to E. scabrosus with slender aedeagi ( Fateryga 2018). Gusenleitner (2013) treated E. dubius crimensis as a valid species without any comment, but the status of E. crimensis was discussed by Fateryga (2018). Considering the shape of the depicted aedeagi by Fateryga (2018) it could be E. dubius as well E. sareptanus ; both have the medial part of the aedeagi similarly shaped.

Unfortunately, the original description does not include any remarks on the shape of the apical antennal segment of the male. The males should have the apical antennal segment narrower basally and less curved than in typical E. dubius according to Gusen-leitner (1972). Michael Greeff (ETHZ) kindly supplied the first author with photographs of the male paratype, which clearly shows that it is not E. dubius because of the comparatively slender apical antennal segment which fits well with the apical segment of E. sareptanus . The latter species has coarser punctures (often with distinct smooth interspaces) on head and mesosoma dorsally than in E. dubius , yellow area of pronotum more widened compared to median width, and first metasomal tergite latero-apically broadly yellow. All these characters are present in the paratype of E. crimensis and, therefore, we synonymise E. crimensis with E. sareptanus (syn. nov.).

Distribution.

A comparatively rarely collected species in C and S Europe as well in NW Asia. The typical form occurs in southern European Russia up to western Siberia. In Switzerland occurring between 255 and 1250 m altitude ( Neumeyer 2019).

Figures

Figures 208 - 215. Eumenes sareptanus Andre, Croatia, female 208 metasoma lateral 209 first metasomal tergite dorsal 210 first tergite ventral 211 head and mesosoma dorsal 212 mesoscutum and scutellum lateral 213 head anterior 214 head and propleuron lateral 215 hind tarsal claw.

Figures 216 - 226. Eumenes sareptanus Andre, Bulgaria, male 216 metasoma lateral 217 first metasomal tergite dorsal 218 first tergite ventral 219 mesosoma dorsal 220 second tergite latero-dorsal 221 mesoscutum and scutellum lateral 222 head anterior 223 head and mesosoma lateral 224 apical hook of antenna ventral 225 setosity of head latero-dorsal 226 antennal hook lateral.

Figures 85 - 93. Eumenes dubius de Saussure, Bulgaria, male 85 metasoma lateral 86 first metasomal tergite dorsal 87 first tergite ventral 88 head and mesosoma dorsal 89 apical hook of antenna lateral 90 head anterior 91 head and propleuron lateral 92 apical hook of antenna latero-ventral 93 mesoscutum and scutellum lateral.