Polybia hecuba Richards, 1951

Amorim, Danielle C. De A., Dos Santos Junior, José N. A., Carvalho- Filho, Fernando Da S., Silveira, Orlando T. & Carpenter, James M., 2024, Taxonomic study of wasp species in the Polybia (Myrapetra) occidentalis group morphologically related to P. scrobalis and P. flavifrons, with description of a new species (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Polistinae), Zootaxa 5477 (5), pp. 537-562 : 547

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5477.5.2
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5F7FB3F5-BC72-40C3-BB2A-63C4C6F119CA
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12733353
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038C1B72-FFBA-FFC1-FF6E-5ECC6B66F819
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Polybia hecuba Richards, 1951
status	stat. nov.

Treatment

Polybia hecuba Richards, 1951 , stat. nov.

( Figs 3 View FIGURES 1–8 , 11 View FIGURES 9–16 , 19 View FIGURES 17–24 , 27 View FIGURES 25–32 , 33, 35 View FIGURES 33–36 )

Polybia parvula hecuba Richards, 1951: 138 . Holotype ♀, Brazil, Theresopolis (Teresópolis, RJ; not Santa Catarina) (NHM), examined.

Polybia flavifrons hecuba View in CoL : Richards 1978: 40, 98; Valverde et al. 2019: 4, 10.

Diagnosis. FEMALE. Fore wing with 6–7 mm; head with the occipital margin distinct dorsolaterally, just interrupted behind ocelli, and strong and with distinct edge at sides; gena distinctly wide, equal to eye–width at the level of ocular sinus; clypeus much wider than high (HCLP/WCLP—0.85); eyes with some erect short bristles; pronotal carina faintly indicated, almost absent; body with numerous outstanding short erect bristles; scrobal furrow distinct above and largely obliterated below; first metasomal segment rather short, its length less than height of mesopleuron (LSI / HMP—0.95); mesosoma variably painted with small marks, mostly dark; metasomal terga and sterna 2–6 with narrow yellow distal bands. MALE. According to Richards (1978) gena is narrower and fore and mid coxae yellow beneath.

Examined material. BRAZIL: Minas Gerais, Barroso MG Br, 1♀ 04.ii.2006 (Nascimento, M. A., Silva, M. A., Silva, M. J., Silva, M. M.), Barroso MG – Lajinha , 2♀ 26.iii.2021, PESP–MG, 3♀ 20.iii.2016, 2♀ 04.xi.2017 (Dos Anjos, C. S., Souza, M. M., Milani, L. R.) ( CBVS); São Paulo, Eug. Lefevre, C. Jordão, 1♀ 28.ix.1962 (L. T. F., Papavero, Rabello, L. Silva, Zanettin) ; PERU: Canyon base of Machu Picchu , 1♀ 8–10.vii.64 (B. Matrin) ( MZSP) .

Distribution. Argentina; Peru; Colômbia; Costa Rica; Venezuela; Brazil: Maranhão, Bahia, Distrito Federal, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul.

Remarks. In listing the types of P. f. hecuba, Richards (1978: 98) mixed the respective locality data between the holotype (Theresopolis) and one paratype (Humboldt, Santa Catherina; see Richards 1951: 138), saying that the holotype was from Theresopolis (= Teresópolis), state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Teresópolis is actually a locality in the “Serra do Mar” in the state of Rio de Janeiro, while “Humboldt” is an old name of the city of Corupá, in the state of Santa Catarina. So, the holotype of P. hecuba is from the state of Rio de Janeiro, not Santa Catarina.

Richards (1978: 98) remarked his previous identification mistakes regarding the 1951 type series of Polybia f. hecuba saying “… of the series from which subspecies hecuba was described, the holotype and the one from Brazil: PR, Castro belong here, the others are P. o. occidentalis ”. Actually, his 1978 concept of the taxon morphology is very different from that of the 1951 description, which practically only mentioned color pattern, and the shape of the first metasomal tergum to diagnose subspecies hecuba from P. parvulina . The type examined by O. T. Silveira in the NHM agrees with Richards (1978) concept, i.e. with the pronotal carina practically absent, frons and nearly all the body covered by outstanding bristles, color pattern dark with few yellow marks. So, we must assume that the wide geographical distribution reported by Richards (1978) for hecuba is based on his more recent concept of the taxon as a subspecies of P. flavifrons .

In the present study, we examined ten specimens from Brazil (Minas Gerais and São Paulo) and Peru which agree with the previously observed type specimen and with the description in Richards (1978). The subspecies described by Richards (1951) and revised by Richards (1978), especially the forms occurring in central and southern Brazil forms a coherent taxon, clearly different from P. f. flavifrons or P. f. barbatula, and we here consider it as a valid species. However, we leave open the question whether all the forms reported by Richards (1978) from so many places in South America up to Costa Rica indeed are part of a single species. The distribution pattern reported for P. hecuba is very different from the other two forms of P. flavifrons , and quite interestingly P. hecuba has not been recorded from Brazilian Amazonia.