REVISION OF LEUCOSPIDAE 93 



Zone: Fort Clayton, v. 1944, 1 9 (Frick) (CAS, S. Francisco). Colombia: Rio 

 Frio, xii. 1923, 1 9 (Gowdey), iv. 1927, 4 9 (Salt) (BMNH); Chiriguana Distr. nr 

 Lake Sapatoza, 1924, 1 9 (Allen) (BMNH); Dept. Boyaca, Muzo, 900m, vii. 1936, 

 2 5 9. 5 6* (Bequaert) (MCZ, Cambridge & BMNH); Baranquilla, vii., 1 9 (Bequaert) 

 (MCZ, Cambridge). Ecuador: Guayaquil, 1920, 2 9 (Buchwald) (TM, Budapest). 

 Peru: Yurac, 67 mis E. of Tingo Maria, 1954, 1 9 (Schlinger & Ross) (CAS, S. 

 Francisco). Venezuela: Barinas, 1 9 (Anduze) (MCZ, Cambridge). Trinidad: 

 'mexicana\ 1 9 (Coll. Marshall, TM, Budapest); St. Augustine, xi. 1947, 1 9 (Callan) 

 (BMNH). Guyana: Bartioz, 1 $, Pevas, 1 9 (MCSN, Genoa); Kartabo, vii. 1924, 

 1 9 (CM, Pittsburgh); Mazaruni, from a mud cell of a ?bee, viii. 1937, 1 o* (Richards 

 & Smart) (BMNH); N.W. Distr., Mabaruma, iv. 1929, I 9 (Myers) (USNM). 

 French Guiana: Cayenne, iii. 1917, 1 9 (CM Pittsburgh). Brazil: "Guayana" 

 (Amapa?), Villanova, x. 1900, 1 9 (Ducke) (NM, Vienna); Para, Ilha de Marajo, 

 Soure, 1 9 (Betram) (MNHU, Berlin); Santarem, 1 $ (Bates) (UM, Oxford); Taperinha 

 nr Santarem, vii. 1927, 3 9 (Zerny) (NM, Vienna), iv.-vi. 1919, 18 $, 6 <$ (Klages) 

 (CM, Pittsburgh & BMNH); Alter do Chao nr Santarem, 1 9 (Bates); Tapajoz, 2 9, 

 paralectotypes of tomentosa (Bates) (BMNH); Amazonas, 1 9 (Bates) (UM, Oxford); 

 Rio Purus, Hyutanahan, 3 $ (Klages) (CM, Pittsburgh) ; Guarityba, Distr. Federal, 

 iv. 1932, x. 1934 (Silva) (IBUR, Rio de Janeiro); Santa Catarina, Blumenau, 1 9 

 (Hetschko) (NM, Vienna); Nova Teutonia, ii. 1936, xii. 1953, 2 9 (Plaumann) 

 (BMNH). 



Leucospis mexicana Walker 

 (Text-fig. 106) 



Leucospis Mexicana Walker, i860 : 20, 9- LECTOTYPE 9 (here designated), Mexico (BMNH) 

 [examined]. 



Schletterer (1890 : 265, 269) regarded L. mexicana as a synonym of L. cayennensis 

 Westwood, apparently after examination of some specimens identified as such by 

 some previous author, probably mainly by P. Cameron. One of these specimens 

 is preserved in TM, Budapest and is undoubtedly cayennensis. Even Cameron, 

 however, was not sure about his identification (as revealed by his statement; 1883 : 

 76-77), for he could not examine the type material of mexicana, and his figure 

 (1883, pi. 4, fig. 11) clearly shows that he mistook cayennensis for mexicana. On 

 the other hand Cresson's description (1872:30) seems to fit mexicana. I have 

 not seen his material but there are two specimens in the Paris Museum, also coming 

 from Sumichrast from Mexico, which are true mexicana. I re-examined also 

 Strand's specimen (1911a : 95); he identified the species correctly. 



The differences between the two closely related species are given in the key above. 

 It may be stressed that apart from the unusual pubescence of the gastral apex 

 in mexicana the puncturation of hind femur is denser and less coarse, the pubescence 

 of the propodeum slightly less dense, the dorsellum less convex and therefore 



