1985] 
Ashe — Meronera venustula 
195 
fusion of solenidia IIIS2 and IIIS3 of antennomere 3 (Figure 5); 
pronotal chaetotaxy with discal setae represented only by Da2 and 
Dc2, and Dc2 very large in comparison to Da2 (Figure 10); abdom- 
inal terga II-VII with 3 long setae (P2, Db3, P4) in posterior row 
(Figure 13); completely membranous and indistinct tergal gland 
reservoir, without associated external modification of postero- 
medial margin of tergum VIII (Figure 15), and small, papillate 
sclerotized termination of gland ducts; and, 4 very small to minute 
anal hooks of the pseudopodium (Figure 16). 
The description provided here highlights and illustrates the 
distinctive characteristics of larvae of Meronera venustula in com- 
parison to other known aleocharine larvae. Nomenclature and 
abbreviations for chaetotaxic structures are those developed by 
Ashe and Watrous (1984). Presumed homologies of setae are based 
on relative positions in relation to other more stable chaetotaxic 
features which provide reference points as proposed by these 
authors. The possibility of incorrect designation of homologous 
setae remains (for example, note problems associated with designa- 
tion of Db3 of abdominal terga II-VII). However, usefulness of a 
general reference system for naming and discussing setae is apparent 
in spite of this limitation. Such errors in designation and weaknesses 
inherant in the system can only become clarified after chaetotaxy of 
larvae of a significant number of aleocharine taxa have been studied 
comparatively and in detail. Inaccuracies which can result from this 
approach are discussed in Ashe (In press) and are recognized here. 
Though the relatively reduced chaetotaxy of larvae of M. 
venustula causes problems in determining homologies of some 
setae, most are readily homologizable with comparable chaetotaxic 
features of A theta coriaria Kroatz (see Ashe and Watrous 1984). 
However, some are problematic and require additional discussion of 
rationale and alternative possibilities. Head setation (Figures 2, 4) is 
similar to that described for Atheta coriaria (Ashe and Watrous 
1984). It differs primarily in that one seta is absent from the 
epicranial dorsal row and one is absent from the lateral row. These 
missing setae are respectively determined to be Edl, based on 
position of Ed2 and Ed3 in relation to Ec2, and L2, based on 
position of remaining lateral setae in comparison to other rows of 
setae. Labral setae are initially difficult to identify because of 
absence of sutures which delimit the labrum from the head capsule; 
however, once frontal setae are identified, homologies of labral 
setae become apparent. 
