Chrysopodes Navás, 1913

Tauber, Catherine, 2010, Revision of Neosuarius, a subgenus of Chrysopodes (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae), ZooKeys 44 (44), pp. 1-104 : 9-10

Chrysopodes Navás, 1913

Navás (1912 –1913) described the genus Chrysopodes on the basis of external adult features. Although the taxonomic value of chrysopid genitalic characters was recognized early in the 1950s (e.g., Principi 1949, 1954; Tjeder 1954); the structures were not included in the treatment of any neotropical taxa until the mid-1970s ( Adams 1975). As a result the genus Chrysopodes remained poorly characterized until the mid 1980s when Adams (1985) and Adams and Penny (1985) included these characters in their treatment of the Amazonian species. Currently, the genital characteristics (especially those of females) remain undescribed for many Chrysopodes species.

In their work, Adams and Penny (1985, 1986) also recognized the diversity of species contained within Chrysopodes , and they subdivided the genus into two subgenera: Chrysopodes with sickle-shaped mandibles and Neosuarius with broadlybased mandibles. Brooks and Barnard (1990), in their worldwide review of chrysopid genera, accepted the subgeneric classification; they provided re-descriptions of the genus and the two subgenera; and they assigned numerous species to one or the other subgenus.

Unfortunately, the mandibular character-states used to differentiate the subgenera were not clearly defined or consistently applied. As a result, the species assigned to them did not form readily apparent natural groupings. Moreover, the subsequent inclusion of new species ( Penny 2001) and species transferred from other genera ( Tauber 2003) increased the degree of diversity included within the genus and further confounded the limits of the two subgenera. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult to characterize the genus and assign species to its subgenera. Some of the problems were discussed by Tauber (2003).

With the goal of addressing the above issues, I examined the generic placement of each species included in the subgenus Neosuarius and narrowed the definition of the subgenus to those species with mandibles that are broad throughout their full length (from base to tip, not merely at the base, as apparently was the case previously). This restriction resulted in the identification of several additional features that helped delin- eate a cohesive subgenus containing two well-differentiated species-groups. This subgenus, Neosuarius , is revised herein. The remainder of the species (those with mandibles that are sickle-shaped distally) appear to fall within two or three other subgenera.