1988] 
Carpenter — Gayellini 
235 
I have seen specimens from Aconcagua, Atacama, Coquimbo, 
O’Higgins, Santiago (including paratypes from BMNH and IML) 
and Talca. Willink and Ajmat de Toledo (1979) recorded this spe- 
cies from Bio-Bio. 
Willink and Ajmat de Toledo (1979) recognized the same species 
groups as the present paper, but stated that araucana is the most 
distinct and should possibly be treated as a different genus. They 
even stated that morphologically it approaches eumenines of the 
genera Ancistrocerus and Stenodynerus , but it does not possess any 
of the synapomorphies of that subfamily (Carpenter, 1981). The 
characters cited as distinguishing araucana are only trivially different 
from other Gayella . These characters comprise the mesosoma with 
lateral margins subparallel, the malar space nearly obliterated, the 
form of the emargination of male metasoma! tergum VII and the 
form of the male genitalia. The condition of the malar space is 
primitive, and similar to eumenoides ( cf Figs. 15 and 16); the emar- 
gination of male tergum VII is little different from that of eume- 
noides ( cf Figs. 51 and 52). As noted above, their figures of the male 
genitalia are misleading; araucana is no more different in the digitus 
or aedeagus than the other species are from each other (Figs. 57-61, 
63). The cuspis is autapomorphic in having a sharp tubercle, but this 
again is not properly illustrated in the other species, all of which 
have some projection. The subparallel mesosoma is also autapo- 
morphic, but this is a minor difference compared to the outstanding 
similarities shared by all species of Gayella . Placement of araucana in 
a separate genus would render Gayella paraphyletic, which is reason 
enough to reject doing so. 
Mutilloides group 
Gayella reedi Willink 
G. reedi Willink, 1963:385, 1 fig., 9 (CAS) — “Casa Blanca, 
Valparaiso, Chile.” 
I have seen material from Atacama, Coquimbo (including a 
USNM paratype) and Valparaiso (including CAS and IML para- 
types). The male has not previously been described. One specimen 
labelled “Chile, Coquimbo: Llano de la Higuera, N. of La Serena, 
Sept. 29, 1980 Luis E. Pena” AMNH, and two from “Chile: Ata- 
cama 20 km. E on Ruta 31 nr. Puquios, 9-X-1984 (C. Porter & T. 
O’Neill)” CP and MCZ, evidently belong to this species. The pilosity 
is the same as in the female (Fig. 36). The color markings are also 
