A RECONSIDERATION OF THE GENUS EPIPOMPILUS 
(HYMENOPTERA: POMPILIDAE) 1 
By Howard E. Evans 
Museum of Comparative Zoology 
The genus Epipompilus was described by Kohl in 1884, with 
maximiliani Kohl, from Mexico, as type. It was next treated by 
Ashmead in 1902, who at the same time described a related genus, 
Aulocostetkus with bifasciatus Ashmead, from “Peru”, as type, 
Haupt, in 1930, erected the tribe Epipompilini for these two genera 
and several others; the others were shortly thereafter removed to 
another tribe. In 1944 Bradley presented a revision of the American 
species of Epipompilus and Aulocostetkus. Ashmead, Haupt, and 
Bradley all separated the two genera by whether or not the eyes are 
hairy. Since Ashmead said that Epipompilus has glabrous eyes, it is 
clear that he was unfamiliar with the genus; and both Haupt and 
Bradley admit they had never seen the genus. Thus we have the 
curious phenomenon of a genus being treated by three persons, none 
of whom had ever seen any specimens belonging to the genus as he 
conceived it. As a matter of fact the eyes of maximiliani are hairy, and 
Epipompilus as conceived by these three workers is a nonexistent 
genus: in actuality the name Epipompilus is a senior synonym of 
Aulocostetkus. 
This is only one of several sources of confusion in the genus. Ash- 
mead described Aulocostetkus by merely placing it in a key and listing 
bifasciatus n. sp. as type. His description of bifasciatus can be and has 
been considered valid, but he gives no information other than the 
generic characters and the type locality (“Peru”), not even as to 
color pattern, which is of much value in separating species in this 
genus. Haupt used Ashmead’s name for a specimen from Costa Rica, 
while Bradley, unable to find Ashmead’s type, followed Haupt while 
expressing doubt that he had correctly identified Ashmead’s species. 
However, there is a specimen in the U. S. National Museum labeled 
as Aulocostetkus bifasciatus Ashmead in Ashmead’s handwriting and 
marked as type of that species. But to add to the confusion this speci- 
men bears the locality Bahia, Brazil, not “Peru” as it should. Now 
Costa Rica (Haupt’s specimen) is actually closer to Peru than is 
Bahia, Brazil, but I find it hard to reason away the identification label 
in Ashmead’s handwriting. Specimens of this genus are so rare that one 
is unlikely to make an error in labeling; in fact I doubt if Ashmead 
Published with the aid of a grant from the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology at Harvard College. 
25 
