Eumenes subpomiformis Bluethgen , 1938

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 subpomiformis Bluethgen, 1938

Figs 227-235 , 236-243

Eumenes subpomiformis Blüthgen, 1938: 480, 496; Gusenleitner 1972: 101-103, 1999: 574, 2013: 29; Tobias and Kurzenko 1978: 161; Castro 1997: 4; Schmid-Egger and Schmidt 2002: 18; Woydak 2006: 46-47; Castro and Sanza 2009: 267; Arens 2012: 489; Schmid-Egger 2010: 23, 2011: 44; Neumeyer 2014: 367, 2019: 276; Baldock et al. 2020: 44.

Eumenes (Eumenes) subpomiformis ; van der Vecht and Fischer 1972: 133-134 (literature before 1972); Vergés Serra 1985: 147; Castro 1992: 25; Sanza 1997: 463; Schmid-Egger 2004: 73; Gereys 2006: 387, 2016: 137; Fateryga 2017: 182; Dal Pos et al. 2022: 16.

Eumenes subpomiformis subpomiformis ; Giordani Soika and Borsato 1995: 7; Borsato and Turrisi 2004: 145.

Eumenes subpomiformis crassipunctatus Blüthgen, 1956: 3; van der Vecht and Fischer 1972: 133 (literature before 1972); Gusenleitner 1972: 101-103 (as synonym of E. subpomiformis ): Fateryga 2017: 182 (as synonym of E. sareptanus ).

Notes.

As pointed out by Gusenleitner (1972) E. subpomiformis is very similar to E. pomiformis (" Eumenes pomiformis steht der Art Eumenes subpomiformis sehr nahe und nicht der Art Eumenes lunulatus ") and is easily misidentified when the medium-sized or long setae of the propleuron of E. subpomiformis are not well exposed (head too much down), depressed or damaged. He also correctly denounced the differences in shape of the clypeus as illustrated by Blüthgen (1938) ("Die Form des Clypeus, wie sie Blüthgen für Eumenes subpomiformis angibt (Ausschnittecken nach den Seiten gezogen) tritt auch bei Eumenes pomiformis auf".) What remains in both sexes for separation according to the keys by Gusenleitner (1972, 1999) is the length of the setae on the propleuron (with equal shorter setae in E. pomiformis and with unequal longer setae in E. subpomiformis ). However, the setosity seems rather variable (especially in males) and should be used in combination with other characters. Recent molecular research ( Neumeyer and Praz 2015; Schmid-Egger and Schmidt 2021; this paper) revealed distinct genetic differences between E. subpomiformis and E. pomiformis (Fig. 3 ) despite their overall similarity.

Specimens in RMNH identified by Blüthgen (in 1950 and 1955) as E. pomiformis barbatulus belong either to E. subpomiformis (Portugal; females with mostly comparatively short setae on propleuron and deeply emarginate clypeus) or to E. coarctatus (most specimens (with medium-sized to long setae on propleuron) from Portugal, Spain, France, Algeria, Morocco).

Distribution.

C and S Europe, but unknown from Sardinia ( Giordani Soika and Borsato 1995); outside Europe known from Morocco, Israel, Lebanon, and Asia Minor. In Switzerland found up to 1920 m altitude ( Neumeyer 2019) as in Greece ( Arens 2012).

Figures

Figure 3. Neighbour-Joining tree for barcoded European Eumenes species. Both E. coarctatus specimens (sampled 5 y ago for another project and not available for examination) among E. coronatus are obviously misidentified and, therefore, in quotation marks. The numbers are RMNH unique identifiers except the Finnish numbers of both dark specimens of E. c. coarctatus from Finland.

Figures 227 - 235. Eumenes subpomiformis Bluethgen, Bulgaria, female 227 metasoma lateral 228 first metasomal tergite dorsal 229 first tergite ventral 230 mesosoma dorsal 231 second metasomal tergite latero-dorsal 232 head anterior 233 head and propleuron lateral 234 hind tarsal claw 235 antenna.

Figures 236 - 243. Eumenes subpomiformis Bluethgen, Bulgaria, male 236 metasoma lateral 237 first metasomal tergite dorsal 238 first tergite ventral 239 head and mesosoma dorsal 240 propodeum dorsal 241 head anterior 242 head and mesosoma lateral 243 apical hook of antenna lateral.