Subspecies
|
(1) Methocha articulata articulata (Latreille, 1792)
(2) Methocha articulata nigrescens Hoffer, 1938 (Czech Republic, Slovakia)
(3) Methocha articulata obscura Hoffer, 1938 (Slovakia, Ukraine)
Agnoli (2005)
writes that the taxa nigrescens and obscura are identical, but does not
give an indication which one has priority. Thus, the first reviser has
not resolved the priority issue and the valid name for this
south-eastern European subspecies is currently unresolved. Agnoli (2005)
further suggests that these names may only refer to color variants and
thus are synonyms of the nominate form. I agree with this notion, but
leave the synonymization to a future revision of this species. In any
case, in Germany only the nominate form has been recorded.
|
Synonyms
|
Synonymy of Metocha articulata articulata:
Mutilla formicaria Latreille, 1792 (nomen dubium, unclear synonym)
Mutilla articulata Latreille, 1792
Methoca articulata (Latreille, 1792) (unjustified emendation of Methocha)
Methocha articulata (Latreille, 1792)
Methocha articulata articulata (Latreille, 1792)
Methoca ichneumonides Latreille, 1805
Methocha ichneumonides (Latreille, 1805)
Methoca mutillaria Latreille, 1806
Gonatopus mutillarius (Latreille, 1806)
Tengyra sanvitali Latreille, 1809
Spinolia italica Costa, 1858
Methocha arcticulata auct. (misspelling)
Methocha ichneumonoides auct. (misspelling)
|
Identification
|
A species with strong sexual dimorphism: males are winged, females are wingless.
|
Distribution
|
No information has been entered yet.
|
Biology
|
This species is a parasite of the larvae of Tiger Beetles (Cicindela, Carabidae).
Thus, it depends on the occurrence of their hosts and can be found in
the same habitats, mainly sandy areas, dry slopes, and open heathland.
Imagines can be found from May to July, exceptionally also in August, in
a single generation. The species is believed to be very rare in
Germany, but Bleidorn and Venne (2000)
note that the species may often be overlooked, because the females
can easily be confused with ants and thus are not reported
properly. In addition, Bleidorn and Venne (2000)
show that the number of males that were caught in their study is
extremely low (male to female ratio 1:31). Thus, if males are rare and
females confused with ants, then this might explain why the species is
regarded as very rare in Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
