Dasymutilla sulcatulla Mickel

MANLEY, DONALD G. & PITTS, JAMES P., 2007, Tropical and Subtropical Velvet Ants of the Genus Dasymutilla Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae) with Descriptions of 45 New Species, Zootaxa 1487 (1), pp. 1-128 : 94

Dasymutilla sulcatulla Mickel

Dasymutilla sulcatulla Mickel, 1928 , U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 143:155. Holotype female, Brewster County, Texas, Rio Grande, June 13-17, 1908 (Mitchell and Cushman) (No. 40730) [USNM] (examined). Male description: Manley (1996:116).

Diagnosis of Female (Plate C8N). The distinguishing character of this species is that flagellomeres III to X may be longitudinally sulcate. However, this character is not always present. Otherwise, this species can be recognized by its coloration and several structural characteristics. The female has the antennal scrobe weakly carinate, and a genal carina is absent. The posterolateral angle of the head is not tuberculate. The mesosoma is longer than broad, and possesses a scutellar scale. The dorsum of the head, mesosoma, and metasoma is predominantly concolorous, orange. The integument of tergum II is yellow/orange, like the setae. The remainder of the integument is black.

Diagnosis of Male (Plate C8O). The male of this species can be recognized by its coloration and several structural characteristics. The integument is entirely black, except for two orange maculae on tergum II. The setae of the head, mesosoma, and terga III to VI are orange. Setae of sterna II to IV are pale orange. This male lacks a pit on sternum II, while having an apical fringe of setae on the pygidium.

Distribution. USA (Texas); Mexico (Durango).

Remarks. This species is known from both sexes, but is very restricted in its distribution. Most specimens have been collected in Brewster County, Texas, along the Rio Grande River, either in or very near Big Bend National Park. It is known from only about a dozen females, and about a half dozen males, all of which have been examined.

The male of this species is very similar to D. chiron ursula , but may be distinguished by the pale sternal setae. If the apical fringe of setae on the pygidium were missing, this species would key to couplet #38. However, it is very different from either of those species.