222 
Psyche 
[Vol. 95 
nae (Carpenter, 1981, 1988, 1989), thus requiring an inference of 
loss in Stenogastrinae. 
Hind coxal carina. Richards (1962) made contradictory state- 
ments concerning the presence of this feature in Gayellini (cf. p. 15 
and 44). This was initially followed by Carpenter (1981), but cor- 
rected by Carpenter and Cumming (1985:907). All Gayellini lack 
this carina, a primitive condition. 
Claws. Richards (1962:44) erroneously characterized the claws 
of Gayella as simple, and Carpenter (1981:26) initially followed this 
(corrected in Carpenter and Cumming, 1985:907). In fact, the claws 
are toothed in all species of Gayellini (variable in G. mutilloides). 
This is the plesiomorphic condition in Vespidae. 
Male genitalia. I have examined the genitalia of all species 
except Paramasaris cupreus and Paragayella richardsi, where the 
males are still unknown. In the groundplan of the tribe, the aedea- 
gus is broadly rounded apically, the digitus is a prominent triangu- 
lar lobe that is desclerotized ventrally, the cuspis is a small lobe 
completely fused to the lamina volsellaris, and the parameral spines 
are long and sharply pointed (Figs. 56-63). Figure 39 of Richards 
(1962), showing a large, triangular cuspis and rounded digitus in 
Gayella araucana, is incorrectly labelled. What is there termed cus- 
pis is actually the digitus, and the structure labelled as digitus must 
be the aedeagus ( cf. Fig. 58). This figure was the reason I previously 
was unable to characterize the groundplan of the volsella in the tribe 
(Carpenter, 1981:26), as I had not seen that species at the time. 
Within genera, the genitalia are relatively uniform, with species dif- 
fering in details (especially of the volsella); however, there are some 
consistent differences between the genera. These are discussed 
below. 
Paramasaris 
Giordani Soika (1974) characterized Paragayella as related to 
Gayella, and stated (my translation): “This genus appears at first 
sight a Gayella by the general aspect and dimensions.” The type 
material I have seen he even labelled as “ Gayella richardsi. ”In fact, 
Paragayella is not really even superficially similar to Gayella. Para- 
gayella lacks some of the apomorphies shared by the species of 
Paramasaris, and for some other derived traits which Paramasaris 
and Paragayella share the latter has a less developed state. Thus it 
shares some primitive similarity with Gayella, which of course indi- 
