Polistes major major Palisot de Beauvois

Genaro, Julio A., 2011, Vespidae (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of Puerto Rico, West Indies, Insecta Mundi 2011 (202), pp. 1-35 : 18

Polistes major major Palisot de Beauvois

Polistes major Palisot de Beauvois, 1818: 206 , pl. VIII fig. 1 - “Sainte-Domingue” (type depository un� known). - Wolcott 1936: 567 , fig.; 1941: 155. - Ramos 1946: 68 (Mona). - Wolcott 1951: 864 . - García Tudurí et al. 1974: 130 (Desecheo). � Medina Gaud and Martorell 1974: 270 (Caja de Muertos).

Polistes carnifex ; Ashmead 1900: 311. Misidentification.

Polistes major var. major ; Bequaert 1937: 174.

Polistes major var. (or subsp) bakeri Bequaert, 1940: 15, male, female � U. S. A.: “San Antonio, Bexar Co., TEXAS ” (MCZH). – Snelling 1974: 477 (syn. of P. major Palisot de Beauvois ).

Polistes major major ; Bohart 1951: 879.

Polistes major bakeri ; Bohart 1951: 879.

This species was described from Hispaniola, and is widespread in mainland America. It has been considered to have been introduced into Puerto Rico ( Bequaert 1936), as the first collecting record dates from 1930, after the hurricane of 1928 that was suggested to have brought it to Puerto Rico, as well as to Mona, where the first collecting record dates from 1939 ( Wolcott 1951 ). Wolcott (1951: 864) stated: “It now occurs in all parts of Puerto Rico, but is not especially abundant” which is the case today (pers. obs. of the junior author). It is mentioned in the list for Mona by Ramos (1946) but not the later list by Torres and Snelling (1992), and the junior author did not observe the species on two trips to Mona, in 2000 and 2007. However, given our discovery of two undescribed endemic species of Vespidae , and confirmation of the occurrence of another species that is otherwise widespread in the Lesser Antilles, we must question the premise underlying the suggestion that the species is introduced, namely that previous collecting was really sufficient to establish absence. It could have been present all along, rare perhaps but in any case overlooked. We also think that the speculation that this species was blown in on the wind should be set aside.

Wolcott (1941, 1951) gave some details about nesting and prey. There is otherwise rather little published on the biology of this widespread species (e. g. Rau 1940, 1943).