Ammoplanellus (Ammoplanellus) shestakovi, Gussakovskij

Boucïek, Zdenek, 2001, Palaearctic species of Ammoplanus (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae), Journal of Natural History 35, pp. 849-929 : 921-922

A. (Ammoplanellus) shestakovi Gussakovskij

Ammoplanu s shestakovi Gussakovskij, 1931: 444 ±445, 440, 441. Kazakhstan, Syrdarya region: Tartugay nr Perovsk (and Turkmenistan: Chardjou). Lectotype female from Tartugay, designated by Marshakov (1976: 681); in ZMAS (examined).

5 Ammoplanu s (Ammoplanellus) clypealis Tsuneki, 1972: 224 ±225. Mongolia: Bayan-hongor Aimak. Holotype male, by original designation, in TMB (examined). Synonymized with shestakovi by Marshakov (1976: 681).

Synonymy. After examination of many specimens of shestakovi , including its lectotype, and of the holotype and a female paratype of clypealis , I agree with Marshakov that they belong to the same species. Marshakov rightly transferred shestakovi to the subgenus Ammoplanellus but wrongly synonymized A. zarcoi with shestakovi . A. zarcoi belongs to the subgenus Ammoplanus s. str. as found also by Gayubo (1991: 146). See under kohlii above.

Diagnostic notes. Both in male and female the antennal toruli placed only slightly above lower ocular line (®gures 67, 69, 129). Mandibles moderately broad, tapering to apex, without distinct emargination of upper edge, longer tooth about 1.5 times as long as broad. Occipital carina virtually eOEaced. Flagellum in male with proximal segments quadrate, distal ones slightly to obviously oblong, all with distinct suberect pilosity. In males pterostigma often hardly darker in distal half than in the proximal one, but traces of engraved sculpture in smallest males often visible on upper face and mesoscutum and propodeal sculpture often reduced to median carina and weak transverse striation.

A. shestakovi shows a rather wide allometric variation as well as variation in the length of the marginal cell and in the sculpture of the dorsal parts of head and mesosoma, which led to a suspicion that the present species nanus might be just a more strongly sculptured western vicariant of shestakovi . This suspicion was enhanced by Marshakov’s statement (1976: 681) about the occurrence of shestakovi in Spain which was, however, based either on the erroneous synonymization of zarcoi under shestakovi , or perhaps on some misidenti®ed Spanish material. The numerous specimens from the arid regions of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, collected mainly by Dr V. Kazenas of Almaty, proved most useful to assess the limits of variation.

The allometric variation is illustrated by a short-headed female (®gure 129) and a long-headed one (®gure 67). Some Asiatic specimens have also a paler and less strongly bicolorous pterostigma (®gure 68).

Comment. One undescribed African species from Zimbabwe has no occipital carina as some nanus and shestakovi but the male antenna has all ¯agellar segments elongate.

Material examined. Kazakhstan: Tartugay , lectotype female and one female paralectotype, 3± 15 June 1929 (Shestakov; ZMAS) . Turkmenistan (E.): Repetek District , Karakumy, 72 land 75m, 7± 19 May 1990 (Kazenas; most BMNH); (S.E.) : Barakhudzir, R. Ili , 30 km SSW of settlement Koktal, 1, 1 July 1993 (Kazenas) . Mongolia ( South Gobi Aimak ): 9 km SSW of Tsogt-Obo, 1, 11 July 1971 (Kozlov; ZMAS) ; 60 km E of area Talin ± Bilgekh ± Bulak, 1m, 17± 19 August 1969 (Kozlov; ZMAS) .

Distribution. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan (both Marshakov, 1976: 681), Kazakhstan, Mongolia.