Megacampsomeris luzonensis ( Rohwer, 1921 ), 2025

Megacampsomeris luzonensis ( Rohwer, 1921) , comb. nov.

Scolia luzonensis Rohwer, 1921: 84 .

Scolia panayensis Cockerell, 1927: 274 . Junior subjective synonym of Scolia luzonensis Rohwer, 1921 according to Castagnet 2021b: 60, 65–66.

Ilkamilka luzonensis : Argaman 1996: 212.

Campsomeris ( Megacampsomeris) pseudopropodealis Betrem, 1928: 158 .

Laevicampsomeris luzonensis : Castagnet 2021b: 60.

Type material examined. Holotype of Scolia luzonensis (USNM) , ♀, [white label] ‘ Scolia luzonensis Type ♀ Roh.’, [red label] ‘ Type No. 23587 U.S. N.M.’.

Holotype of Scolia panayensis (USNM) , ♂, [white label] ‘ Scolia panayensis type ♂ ’, [red label] ‘ Type No. 41539 U.S. N.M.’, [white labels] ‘USNMENT 01546675’, ‘Culasi 6. 20.18’, ‘ Scolia I ♂ ’, ‘Culasi Panay PI June 1918 McGregor’.

Holotype of Campsomeris pseudopropodealis (NMKB) , ♂, [white labels] ‘ C. pseudopropodealis Holotypus Betr det. Betrem’, ‘ Zamboanga Mindanao Schulze’, [red label] ‘holotype’.

Other material examined. Philippines. Mindanao . Agusan del Sur province. 1♀, Esperanza, VIII.2014 ; 2♀, Prosperidad, III.2016; 1♀ 1♂, San Francisco, IV.2019. Bukidnon province. 1♂, Impasug-ong, IV.2014 ; 1♀ 1♂, Intravas, IV.2014; 1♂, Panamokan, V.2014; 1♀, Dominorog, XII.2018; 1♀, same place, I.2019; 1♂, Kabanglasan, III.2018. Catobato province . 1♂, Kidapawan, I.2016; 1♀, Alamada, IV.2019; 2♀, same place, X.2019. Catobato del Sur province . 1♂, mont Parker, IV.2014. Davao Oriental province. 1♂, Mati, V.2017 . Davao del Sur province. 3♀, Kapatagan, IV.2018 ; 5♀, same place, IV.2019. Davao de Oro province . 5♀, Maragusan, IV.2018. Lanao del Norte province. 1♂, Kapatagan, VIII.2015 ; 1♂, same place, XII.2015; 1♂, same place, III.2016; 3♂, same place, VII.2016; 1♂, same place, I.2017; 2♂, same place, VII.2017; 2♀, same place, IV.2018. Lanao del Sur province. 1♂, Wao, V.2018 ; 2♀ 1♂, same place, VI.2018; 1♂, same place, X.2018; 1♀, Maguing, X.2018. Misamis Oriental province. 2♀ 1♂, Balingasag, IV.2014 ; 1♂, same place, VI.2014. Sarangani province. 2♂, Kiamba, I.2016 ; 1♀, same place, II.2017. Surigao del Sur province. 1♀, Barobo, II.2019 ; 1♂, Luagonj, III.2019; 1♀, Lingig, III.2017.

Luzon. Aurora province. 1♀ 1♂, Dingalan , VIII.2017 ; 1♀, same place, III.2018. Mindoro Oriental province. 1♂, Baco , VIII.2017 . Negros. Negros occidental province. 1♀, Salvador Benedicto , VIII.2015 ; 1♂, same place, I.2019. Negros oriental province. 1♂, Dumaguete , V.2015 . Samar. Samar del Norte province. 1♀, Lope de Vega , II.2017. (all local coll. leg.) [all CJBC].

Distribution. Philippines (Mindanao, Luzon, Visayas) ( Rohwer 1921; Betrem 1928; Castagnet 2021a).

Remarks. Based on morphological criteria, the taxa luzonensis and panayensis were synonymized and transferred to the genus Laevicampsomeris from the genus Megacampsomeris ( Castagnet 2021b) . Indeed, females of luzonensis share the following characteristics with species of the genus Laevicampsomeris : the upper part of the frons, vertex, center of scutum, scutellum, and metanotum are largely impunctate; the pronotum, in lateral view, forms a prominent crest; and the dorso-median area of propodeum is clearly wider than long. In both sexes, one recurrent vein is also present. However, the female of luzonensis clearly differs from other Laevicampsomeris species by its entirely punctate propodeum, whereas in Laevicampsomeris species the propodeum is almost completely impunctate. In males, luzonensis is distinguished by an elongated T1 (much longer than wide), while in Laevicampsomeris it is shorter (slightly longer than wide).

Examination of a larger number of L. luzonensis specimens, as well as of L. solomonis Krombein, 1963 , L. bonguensis Betrem, 1933 , and particularly of the male genitalia, reveals my (JBC) earlier mistake in assigning luzonensis to the genus Laevicampsomeris . The taxon luzonensis , although atypical and sharing several traits with Laevicampsomeris , should instead be transferred to the genus Megacampsomeris . Indeed, in both sexes of the taxon luzonensis , the tibial spur is orange in the panayensis form, but slightly darker in the typical form ( luzonensis ), as is the case in Megacampsomeris , which consistently exhibit pale metatibial spurs. This contrasts with Laevicampsomeris , in which the metatibial spurs are always black. The presence of one recurrent vein is sometimes observed in Megacampsomeris , which usually have two recurrent veins (notably M. bitschi and M. acutinerva ), whereas Laevicampsomeris always has only one recurrent vein ( Betrem 1928; Castagnet 2021a). Therefore, this character alone cannot be used to distinguish between the two genera.

My error (JBC) stemmed from the fact that, in females, luzonensis exhibits an atypical reduction of mesosoma punctation, and that the pronotum bears a broad oblique groove at the boundary between the dorsal and lateral surfaces, forming a prominent crest in lateral view, generally less pronounced in Megacampsomeris , though exceptions exist, such as M. farrenwhitei Betrem, 1928 ( Liu et al. 2021b), which shows similarly reduction of mesosoma punctation; and the dorso-median area of propodeum is clearly wider than long. However, females of luzonensis remain more densely punctate, particularly across the entire propodeum, than those of Laevicampsomeris , in which the propodeum is largely impunctate. Furthermore, the dorso-median area of propodeum in Laevicampsomeris is nearly four times wider than long, whereas in luzonensis it is approximately three times longer than wide. The examination of the genitalia of L. luzonensis (see Castagnet 2021b), M. bitschi (see Castagnet 2021a), M. funesta sp. nov. ( Fig. 3A View FIGURE 3 ), and representatives of the genus Laevicampsomeris ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ) clearly confirm that luzonensis shares the same characteristics as species of the genus Megacampsomeris .

To avoid further confusion resulting from my earlier misplacement of the taxon luzonensis within the genus Laevicampsomeris ( Castagnet 2021b) , the following characters can be used to distinguish the genera Megacampsomeris and Laevicampsomeris . The genus Megacampsomeris is distinguished in both sexes by having pale metatibial spurs (ranging from whitish to dark orangish), whereas those of Laevicampsomeris are always black.In Megacampsomeris , the forewing generally has two recurrent veins, sometimes only one, whereas Laevicampsomeris always has a single recurrent vein. In females of Megacampsomeris , the punctation is variable, sometimes largely impunctate on the vertex, scutum, and scutellum, whereas in Laevicampsomeris , the head (mostly) and mesosoma (except for the pronotum and basal part of the scutum) are almost entirely impunctate. In males, the genitalia offer a clear distinction between the two genera. In Megacampsomeris , the paramere is long, slender, and apically pointed. The lamina volsellaris is densely punctate and bears long, erect setae. The basal part of the volsellae is so densely and finely punctate that the bases of the setae are almost indistinguishable; the pilosity is long and erect, forming a brush-like structure. In contrast, in Laevicampsomeris , the paramere is short and thick, broadly rounded apically. The lamina volsellaris is less densely punctate and bears short setae. The basal part of the volsellae, more sparsely punctate, has visible seta bases; the pilosity is short, sparse, and does not form a brush.

The genus Ilkamilka Argaman, 1996 , previously treated incorrectly as a synonym of Laevicampsomeris ( Castagnet 2021b) , must now be considered a synonym of Megacampsomeris .