taxonID	type	description	language	source
03C5878FFFF0F304FF30965DD711FD84.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: “ Eumenes coarctata Fab. ” [= Uespa coarctata Linnaeus, 1758], by subsequent designation of Latreille, 1810, Consid. Gen. Crust. Arachn. Ins.: 438.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF0F304FF30965DD711FD84.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Uespa coarctata Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation of Bequaert, 1926, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 23: 485. Eumenis Kriechbaumer, 1879, Entomol. Nachr. 5: 57 [unjustified emendation of Eumenes Latreille]. Eumemes Fox, 1899, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad: 439 [incorrect spelling of Eumenes Latreille].	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF0F304FF30965DD711FD84.taxon	description	Eumes Bertoni, 1910, Rev. Agron. Bol. Estac. Agron. Puerto Bertoni 4: 36 [incorrect spelling of Eumenes Latreille]. Eumenidion von Schulthess, 1913, Societas Entomol. 28: 2, subgenus of Eumenes Latreille. Type species: “ Eumenes coarctatus L. ” [= Uespa coarctata Linnaeus, 1758], by original designation. Eumenidium Sharp, 1915, in Zool. Rec., Insecta for 1913: 275 [incorrect spelling of Eumenidion von Schulthess]. Literature: Isely, 1917, Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 10: 345 – 363 (North American species); Bequaert, 1938, Bull. Brooklyn Entomol. Soc. 33: 59 – 70 (species of northeastern U. S. A and eastern Canada). Bequaert, 1944, Nat. Canad. 71: 75 – 88 (Canadian species). Giordani Soika, 1978, Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Venezia 29: 16 – 45 (revision of Neotropical species). MacLachlan, 1980, J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 53 (key to North American species). Buck et al., 2008, Can. J. Arthrop. Identif. 5: 1 – 492 (key to northeastern Nearctic Region)	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF6F307FF309339D116FB87.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at OUMNH. Type locality: “ Le Mexique ”. Smith, 1857, 5: 34 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 17 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 21 (cat.). Eumenes americanus; de Saussure, 1875, 254: 103. Zavattari, 1912, 78 A (4): 124. Giordani Soika, 1961, 1: 241. Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 18 (key), 29. West-Eberhard et al., 1995, 573. Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list). Eumenes smithii americanus; Bohart and Menke, 1974, 47: 459, 461. Krombein, 1979, 1508. Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 83, 87 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF6F307FF309339D116FB87.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at USNM (n ° 21378) (examined). Type locality: Brewster County, Chisos Mountains, Texas (USA). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 68. Eumenes aureus; Bohart, 1948, 24 (9): 315. Bohart, 1951: 884. Krombein, 1958, 163. Linsley, 1962, 55: 151, 152. Krombein, 1967: 376. Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 617, 619 (key). Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 86 (list). Eumenes smithii aureus; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 29.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF6F307FF309339D116FB87.taxon	description	Eumenes (Eumenes) aureus; Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF6F307FF309339D116FB87.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Costa Rica (Guanacaste, San José); Ecuador; El Salvador (La Liberdad); Guatemala (Chimaltenango); Mexico (Baja California, Chiapas, Chihuahua. Coahuila, Estado do Mexico, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit, Nuevo León *, Oaxaca, Pueblas, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Vera Cruz, Zacatecas); USA (AZ, AR, CO, KS, MO *, NE *, NM; TX). * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF6F307FF309339D116FB87.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis: Many specimens examined belonged to E. americanus and E. aureus, and in both were found the same morphology of male genitalia and range of variation across the geographic distribution of this species, which goes from Ecuador to the southwestern USA (Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas). As we did not examine the type specimen of E. americanus, we started the comparisons with one female (from Guatemala) and one male (from Mexico) determined by Giordani Soika in 1978. From this point, we examined 107 specimens and established E. americanus as a species separable from E. smithii mainly by the male genitalia: apex of aedeagus without the rounded protuberance (Fig. 93 a); digitus with short bristles at the base, becoming shorter or reduced towards apex (Fig. 110); ventral lobe strongly rounded (Fig. 93 a). Besides tha male genitalia, in terms of color the species may be similar to some variants of E. smithii, mostly those from Mexico and further South (black marks more developed mainly on the lateral face of the mesosoma) but can be separated mainly by the following features: clypeus with coarse punctures but very sparse on the apical half (Fig. 66); punctation on T 1 sparser (and absent on the base) and on T 2 coarser and sparser (Fig. 43); T 1 with sparser and scattered punctures on the basal third; and T 1 usually longer and more slender (Fig. 27).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF6F307FF309339D116FB87.taxon	description	Female (Fig. 1, 2) Color, head: Black with yellow marks as follows: Mandibles, except for the base; labrum; clypeus, except for a narrow longitudinal band that goes from the base to the center region and a small spot right below the center region; transverse band slightly above the inter-antennal region; a narrow band that runs along the inner margin of compound eyes, from the base of the clypeus to the ocular sinus; a narrow band on the upper half of gena, adjacent to the external margin of the compound eye; almost entire scape and pedicel; the first three and the last two flagellomeres predominantly yellow-orange. Mesosoma: Black, except for the follow regions: yellow band along anterior and posterior (edge of mesoscutum) margins of dorsal face of pronotum. Also on the dorsal face, except for the yellow region, the rest is brownish. Lateral surface of pronotum, below humeral region, blackish. Mesepisternum predominantly black, with a yellow and a brownish mark on upper half, adjacent to the mesepimeron. Tegula (except for a brownish translucent mark on center area) and parategula yellow. Mesoscutum entirely black. Upper half of scutellum yellow and basal half black. Metanotum almost entirely yellow, except for a narrow transverse band along the basal margin. Posterior face of propodeum with a broad longitudinal band along the center region; broad longitudinal yellow band occupying the lateral region of it. Between the black and yellow marks occurs a brownish band. Lateral face of propodeum almost entirely blackish, except for brownish marks on posterior region. Coxae blackish, with brownish background on posterior face of it. Trochanter blackish with small yellow marks on distal margin. Distal half of femora yellow. Tibiae entirely yellow; tarsi yellow-brownish, becoming darker towards apex. Metasoma: T 1 blackish with two yellow spots on the posterior half and a yellow band on the apex. Between the the spot and the apical band there are brownish pale marks. Background of T 2 black-brownish (more brownish on the lateral face), with a transverse broad yellow band on the center area, running to the lateral margins, and one on apex. S 2 brownish, except for a narrow yellow band on the apex and two black spots on the lateral margins. T 3 - T 6 and S 3 - S 6 predominantly yellow, with a narrow brownish band on the apex. Wings: Hyaline, with the costal, submedial and medial cells yellow. Pterostigma and veins dark brownish. Pubescence, head: Clypeus with very short whitish pubescence, better observed in oblique view. Frons, vertex and occipital region with long golden pubescence. Gena also with golden pubescence but shorter than those regions. Mesosoma: Dorsal surface with long and golden pubescence (slightly shorter than on frons and vertex); lateral surface with long pubescence (as long as on dorsal surface), whitish, better observed in oblique view; posterior surface of propodeum with the longest pubescence on body, also whitish. Metasoma: Covered with the shortest pubescence on body, golden, except for some long bristles scattered mainly on basal half of T 1. Surface of the integument, head: Clypeus with weak punctation mostly on basal half. Frons and vertex with coarse and dense punctation, which becomes very sparse behind the ocelli. Gena with reduced punctation. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and dense punctation, except on anterior and posterior portion of mesepisternum, where the punctation is sparser (almost absent on anterior portion). Metasoma: T 1 with coarse and slightly sparser (regarding to the mesosoma) punctation mostly on two-third apical region; dorsal face of T 2 covered with coarse and moderately dense punctation (denser than T 1), which becomes weaker and sparser towards lateral margins. S 2 with evident punctation mostly on lateral margins. T 3 - T 6 and S 3 - S 6 with reduced punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, with the apex concave, producing two rounded apical projections with weak carinae on the apex of each one (Fig. 66). Inter-antennal region slightly wider than the antennal socket, longitudinally cariniform. Lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other. Occipital carina well developed and angled on middle region of gena, not so close to the compound eye near mandibles. Mesosoma: Pronotal fovea present; pronotal carina weakly developed on dorsal face of pronotum and more developed on lateral face. Mesepimeron slightly elevated with respect to the mesepisternum. Posterior projection of tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum concave on basal half. Metasoma: T 1 long, slender, more than three times longer than wide, weakly swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 27). Lateral margins on the apical half subparallel. T 2 slightly longer than wide (Fig. 43), with an apical lamella that becomes reduced towards lateral margins. Angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up abruptly. Males: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 short, without longitudinal carina on dorsal surface, with the apex pointed, surpassing the apical margin of F 8 (Fig. 77). Ventral surface without microscopic erect bristles. S 7 flattened apically, with moderately long scattered pubescence on apex. Color, pubescence, punctation and structure (except for those cited above) as in females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 93 a, b). Paramere (Fig. 93 c) with long bristles on middle region of the gonostyle; digitus very slender on apex, with reduced bristles on the base and no evident on apical half (fig. 110); cuspis with long and dense pubescence; volsella with short (shorter than on cuspis) pubescence; distal lobe truncate with erect bristles along the edge. Variation: In terms of color, E. americanus may vary: yellow band on posterior margin of pronotum absent (only brownish); yellow mark on anterior margin of pronotum may be less developed; marks yellow-brownish on mesoscutum varying on size (in E. bequaerti the mesoscutum is occupied almost entirely by a brownish mark); marks on posterior face of propodeum may be entirely brownish or much reduced (predominantly black); marks on scutellum may be only brownish; brownish marks on basal half of mesepisternum or marks much reduced; yellow marks on coxae and femora more developed; yellow spots on middle area of T 1 may be reduced and the apical band may be broader (E. bequaerti pattern); brownish marks on T 2 more developed or much reduced (predominantly black), while the yellow band on middle area may be contiguous laterally with the apical band, or reduced and restrict to a spot on lateral face. The black background predominance was observed mostly in specimens from Costa Rica and Mexico, and towards the north of Mexico and the localities from USA, some specimens showed more developed yellow marking (old specimens of E. aureus, mainly the type specimen E. belfragei aureus) (Fig. 2).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF6F307FF309339D116FB87.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The holotype of Eumenes belfragei aureus is in excellent condition and bears the labels: ‘ Brewster Co. Tx \ Chisos Mts. \ VI. 10 - 12 - 08 ’ ‘ Mitchell and \ Cushman Coll’ ‘ [Red Label] Type \ No. 21378 \ U. S. N. M. ’ ‘ Eumenes \ belfragei \ aureus \ Isely’ ‘ DO NOT REMOVE \ SI DB reference \ Not a property tag \ T. Schulz, NMHN \\ USNM ENT \ 00537163 ’. The holotype of Eumenes brunneus is in good condition, except for the right antenna which have on the scape, pedicel and F 1: ‘ Colorado’ ‘ 10 ’ ‘ 37 ’ ‘ [Red Label] Type \ No. 21377 \ U. S. N. M. ’ ‘ Eumenes \ belfragei \ Isely’ ‘ DO NOT REMOVE \ SI DB reference \ Not a property tag \ T. Schulz, NMHN \\ USNM ENT \ 00537176 ’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF4F308FF3095CBD221F8F7.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype male at USNM (n ° 21337) (examined). Type locality: “ Colorado ” (USA). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 65, 68 (note on type). Bohart, 1951: 885. Bohart and Menke, 1974, 47: 459, 461. Krombein, 1979: 1508.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF4F308FF3095CBD221F8F7.taxon	distribution	Distribution: USA (CO).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF4F308FF3095CBD221F8F7.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis: Eumenes brunneus Isely, 1917, was considered as a synonym of E. smithii belfragei or E. smithii americanus, which currently are treated as different species (E. smithii and E. americanus). Eumenes bequaerti is known only from the type specimen and the morphology of the male genitalia is clearly different from both E. smithii and E. americanus. Although the aedeagus has dorsal projections as in both species, they are distant from each other (while close in E. smithii and E. americanus) (Fig 94 b), as in E. cubensis and E. pictus. Besides that, the apical projection is rounded, while in E. americanus and E. smithii it is strongly concave or weakly concave or truncate, respectively. The paramere is clearly different as well (Fig 94 c), with the distal lobe more developed, with a rounded protuberance on apex covered with microscopic bristles. Besides that, males from these species may be separated by the following features: E. bequaerti has the posterior face of the propodeum less concave and punctation of T 1 and T 2 weak (mostly on T 2), while E. americanus and E. smithii have the posterior face of propodeum strongly concave and punctation of T 1 and T 2 coarser. This pattern of the external morphology and genitalia may resemble E. cubensis but these taxa can be separated by the following features: clypeus with coarser and more evident punctures; F 11 longer and less broad laterally (Fig 78); ventral margin of aedeagus less projecting (Fig 94 a); volsella with bristles longer and more evident.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF4F308FF3095CBD221F8F7.taxon	description	Male (Fig. 5). Color, head: Predominantly yellow, except for the following regions. Black marks: frons, vertex, surrounding the ocelli, and occipital region. Scape yellow with brownish marks; pedicel brownish; F 1 and F 2 brownish; F 3 – F 8 with blackish marks and F 9 – F 10 predominantly yellow. Mesosoma: Pronotum brownish, except for a broad stripe along the anterior region; mesoscutum with black marks on anterior and posterior regions, while the center region has a broad brownish mark with a small yellow spot on each side of it; tegula yellow with a brownish spot on center region; parategula yellow; scutellum half yellow (anterior) half brownish (posterior); metanotum yellow; posterior face of propodeum brownish with small yellow spot on each side of the upper half (adjacent to the metanotum) and broad yellow marks on each side of the basal half; posterior half of the lateral surface of propodeum brownish and anterior half black; mesepisternum black with broad yellow mark on center region and a brownish mark adjacent to it. Coxae black; distal region of trochanters with yellow marks; femora black with wide yellow marks; tibiae and tarsi yellow. Metasoma: T 1 black with a broad yellow stripe on apex; S 1 yellow; T 2 predominantly brownish, with the basal region black, small yellow spots on each lateral surface and a broad yellow stripe on apex; S 2 brownish with a black mark on center region and a broad yellow stripe on apex; T 3 – T 7 and S 3 – S 7 brownish with yellow stripe on the apex of each segment. Wings: Hyaline, with pterostigma, costal, medial and submedial cells yellowish. Veins brownish. Pubescence, head: Clypeus and gena with short and whitish pubescence. Frons and vertex with longer and golden pubescence. Scape with very short golden pubescence. Mesosoma: Covered with golden pubescence, although on lateral surface and posterior surface of propodeum it appears whitish in oblique view. Metasoma: Covered with short (shorter than on frons and mesosoma) and golden pubescence, except for long and erect bristles on apex of T 2 – T 7 and S 2 – S 7. Surface of the integument, head: Coarse and sparse punctation on clypeus. Coarse and denser punctures on frons and vertex. Gena covered with superficial punctures. Mesosoma: covered with coarse punctation, dense on lateral surface and denser on dorsal surface and posterior face of propodeum, forming carinae between the punctures. Metasoma: Dorsal surface of T 1 with coarse and dense punctation on apical half and basal half with scattered punctures; lateral half with some punctures on apex and ventral surface without punctation; dorsal surface of T 2 with weak punctures, denser apex; lateral surface of T 2 with superficial and sparse punctures; S 2 with weak and sparse punctures, mostly on lateral margins; T 3 – T 7 with weak punctures; S 3 – S 7 without evident punctures. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide; apex of clypeus strongly concave, forming two apical projections with carinae on each projection; inter-antennal region longitudinally cariniform, narrower than the antennal socket; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other; occipital carina complete, weakly angled on middle region of gena; F 11 short and broad at the base, with the apex pointed and reaching the apical edge of F 8 (Fig 78). Mesosoma: Pronotal fovea present; pronotal carina complete, less developed dorsally and more developed laterally; posterior projection of tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula flattened laterally, rounded on apex; posterior face of propodeum weakly concave. Metasoma: T 1 long and slender, about 3 times as long as wide (Fig. 28), with apical margins subparallel; T 2 longer than wide, with an apical lamella, becoming reduced towards lateral margins; basal angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up abruptly; S 7 flat on apex. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 94 a, b. Dorsal projections of aedeagus distant from each other (Fig. 94 b), as in E. cubensis and E. pictus, while the apical projection is rounded as in E. cubensis. Paramere (Fig. 94 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus broad at the base, becoming narrow towards apex with short bristles; cuspis with dense and long bristles along the edge; volsella covered with short bristles; distal lobe strongly projecting, reaching the middle region of gonostyle; apex of distal lobe with a rounded protuberance covered with microscopic bristles and some long bristles (as on cuspis) on the edge of it. Female: Unknown.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF4F308FF3095CBD221F8F7.taxon	materials_examined	Type material: The holotype of Eumenes brunneus is in good condition, except for the right antenna which has only the scape, pedicel and F 1: ‘ Colorado’ ‘ 10 ’ ‘ 37 ’ ‘ [Red Label] Type \ No. 21377 \ U. S. N. M. ’ ‘ Eumenes \ belfragei \ Isely’ ‘ DO NOT REMOVE \ SI DB reference \ Not a property tag \ T. Schulz, NMHN \\ USNM ENT \ 00537176 ’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFBF30BFF309629D15BFC83.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Lectotype female at ANSP (n ° 2066) (examined). Type locality: Texas. Cresson, 1887: 287 [cat.]. Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 19 [cat.]. Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 21 [bolli [! ]]; [cat.]. Viereck, 1906, 32: 230. Isely, 1914 (1913), 8 (7): 299 [bolli [! ]], [nest]. Cresson, 1916, 1: 104 [designation of lectotype]. Isely, 1917, 10: 346 (key), 349. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 65 [notes on types], 68 (list). Bequaert, 1944, 71: 77 (key), 79. Bohart, 1948, (4) 24 (9): 315. MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 617, 619 (key). Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 83, 86 (list). Buck et al. (2008), 5: 44 (key), 154.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFBF30BFF309629D15BFC83.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type female at ZMHB. Type locality: Mexico (“ Ehrenberg ”).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFBF30BFF309629D15BFC83.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at MCZ (n ° 35828) (examined); Paratype female at AMNH (examined); Paratype female at OSU. Type locality: Holotype: “ Wawawai, Whitman Co., Washington State ” (USA). Paratype (AMNH): Fallon, Churchill Co., Nevada (USA); Paratype (OSU): Blitzen, Harney Co., Oregon. Eumenes bollii oregonensis; Bohart, 1951: 884 (cat.). Krombein, 1979, 1507 (cat). Eumenes bollii bollii; Bohart, 1951: 884. Krombein, 1958: 163. Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 24. Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat). Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list). Eumenes bollii ehrenbergi; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 18 (key), 24 (designation of lectotype). Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFBF30BFF309629D15BFC83.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Canada (Alberta); Mexico (Lower California, Chihuahua; Coahulia; Durango; Tamaulipas *, Zacatecas); U. S. A. (AZ, CA, CO, IA *, ID *, KS, MD, MN *, MO *, MT, NE *, NM, NV, OK *, OR, TX, UT, WA). * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFBF30BFF309629D15BFC83.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. Eumenes bollii Cresson, 1872, can be easily identified by the lack of the pronotal carina dorsally, the long pubescence along the body, especially on the frons, dorsal surface of mesosoma, T 1 – T 2, and S 2; and the globose T 2. Bequaert (1938) described Eumenes bollii var. oregonensis (Fig. 4) as a “ melanic variety ” of E. bollii. Later the taxon was treated as a subspecies of E. bollii by Bohart (1951) and Krombein (1979). Eumenes bollii Cresson, 1872, was described as having many ferrugineous marks along the body, while Bequaert (1938) based his variety on the reduction of those ferrugineous marks, mostly on the abdomen. We studied the holotype and one paratype of the E. bollii var. oregonensis and there was no morphological evidence (as stated also by Bequaert, 1938) that would support the separation of the taxon into two different taxa, and as we have found color variants (see variation section below) of E. bollii bollii that overlap with the color description of E. bollii oregonensis, we are confident that both taxa are synonyms. Although we did not see the type specimen of E. bollii ehrenbergi Zavattari (1912), we examined other specimens and observed that there is no morphological difference between it and E. bollii bollii, except that the former has additional ferrugineous marks along the body, as observed by Giordani Soika (1978), who examined the type specimen. Therefore, we propose to treat E. b. ehrenbergi as a synonym of E. bollii.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFBF30BFF309629D15BFC83.taxon	description	Redescription. Lectotype Eumenes bollii Cresson, 1872 (Fig. 3) Female. Color, head: Yellow marks as follows: apex of labrum; mandibles, except for the apex and inner margin which is dark brownish; a stripe running from base of the clypeus to the ocular sinus; scape, except for some ferrugineous marks; pedicel. Black marks as follows: frons, vertex and posterior region of the superior half of the gena; F 4 – F 10, except for ferrugineous marks. Ferrugineous marks as follows: entirely clypeus; inter-antennal region and right above it, but not surpassing the lower level of the upper orbit of the compound eye; a stripe (with some yellowish marks) along anterior portion of gena. Mesosoma: Predominantly ferrugineous, except for blackish marks as follows: a broad longitudinal stripe on mesoscutum; mesepimeron, anterior and posterior portion of the mesepisternum; anterior portion of the lateral face of the propodeum; a narrow transverse stripe on the base of scutelum; a stripe on the superior portion of the posterior face of the propodeum, which runs longitudinally along the medial portion towards the base of it. Tegula and parategula entirely yellow. Coxae, trochanters and femura ferrugineous; tibiae and tarsi yellow. Metasoma: T 1 ferrugineous (like mesosoma) with a blackish band which goes from the base towards and becomes narrower narrow towards pre-apex region; a yellow transverse stripe on apex of T 1; S 1 ferrugineous with smalls black marks on lateral margins; T 2 predominantly yellow with a transverse blackish stripe on the base and a short stripe on each side of the lateral margins portions; ferrugineousyellowish (as in T 1) circle (one in each side) that goes from the base of T 2 along the lateral edge towards the dorsal face of the sclerite; T 3 – T 6 entirely yellow; S 2 yellow with a blackish spot on each side of it; S 3 – S 6 yellow with blackish spots on each side of S 3 and S 4. Wings: Wings yellow with the veins darkened. Pubescence, head: Basal region of clypeus, frons, vertex and occipital region with long and golden pubescence. The rest of the clypeus with short whitish pubescence and some scattered erect bristles. Short and whitish pubescence on gena. Mesosoma: Covered with long (as long as on frons) golden pubescence, including the anterior surface of fore coxae. Trochanter and basal portion of femur of the fore legs with erect and golden bristles. Metasoma: Covered with golden pubescence. T 1 with long pubescence (as in mesosoma) on dorsal and lateral portions, while on ventral portion there is just some long scattered pubescence. Dorsal face of T 2 with long pubescence (as on T 1) on the first third, which becomes shorter on the second third and longer again on the last third. S 2 with long pubescence on basal half which becomes slightly shorter on apical half. T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 5 with short pubescence, except for long bristles on the apex. S 6 with short pubescence on all sclerite. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with weak scattered punctation; frons and vertex with coarser punctation, moderately dense (denser than on clypeus). Mesosoma: Dorsal face and below humeral region of pronotum with coarse and moderately dense punctation as in frons and vertex, except on middle area of the dorsal face where it is weak. Mesepisternum with punctation as on propodeum, except on the anterior portion where there is no evident punctation. Mesoscutum, scutelum, metanotum and lateral face of the propodeum with coarse and moderately punctation (as in pronotum). On posterior face of propodeum the punctation is also coarse but denser than the rest of the mesosoma. Metasoma: T 1 with weak punctation (as in clypeus) very sparse. T 2 with punctation as in T 1 on basal half, which becomes coarse and strongly dense towards apex. S 2 with evident punctation scattered on basal half. T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 with weak scattered punctation. Structure, head: Apex of labrum rounded; clypeus as long as wide with the apex concave forming two rounded projections with weak carina on the apex of each one. Inter-antennal region rounded, transversely elevated at middle area, slightly wider than the antennal socket; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other. Occipital carina complete, weakly angled (concave) on middle portion of the gena and close to the compound eye next to the mandibles. Mesosoma: Pronotal carina absent on dorsal portion, present and well developed on lateral portion of the pronotum; pronotal fovea present; mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding to the mesepisternum. Posterior emargination of tegula weakly developed and rounded; parategula flattened dorsal-ventrally, lamelliform. Posterior face of propodeum strongly concave on basal half; external surface of the basal half of the fore coxa with a well developed carina. Metasoma: T 1 almost three times longer than wide, not strongly swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 29); T 2 longer than wide (Fig. 45), globose in lateral view, with the basal portion rising up strongly and the apical third with an incipient sinuosity on pre-apical region. T 2 with an apical lamella which becomes absent towards lateral portion. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 short, without longitudinal carina on dorsal surface, with the apex pointed surpassing the apical margin of F 8 (Fig. 79). Ventral surface without microscopic erect bristles. S 7 flattened apically, with moderately long scattered pubescence on apex (also on T 7). Color, pubescence, punctation and structure (except for those cited above) are the same as females, including the variation. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 95 a, b. Paramere (fig. 95 c) with long bristles on the middle region of gonostyle; digitus long, becoming narrow towards apex, with moderately long bristles on the base and becoming shorter towards apex (fig. 112); cuspis with erect bristles slightly shorter than those on the base of digitus; volsella with long bristles on the ventral edge and scattered short bristles; distal lobe truncate with no evident bristle. Variation: Yellow marks (frequently mixed with ferrugineous marks): labrum; clypeus; inter-antennal region; a band from the base of the clypeus to the ocular sinus; a narrow band along gena, adjacent to the compound eyes; a band along the anterior portion of the pronotum; a broad spot on upper half of the mesepisternum; parategula; marks on mesoscutum; apical half of scutellum; metanotum; sides of posterior face of propodeum; legs, mainly on femora. One specimen from Nevada (USA) showed a predominantly yellow color along its body. Marks on the mesoscutum may be reduced, absent (mostly in males) or contiguous, with black marks only on anterior and posterior portions of the sclerite. Longitudinal black band on posterior face of propodeum may be narrower; black mark on T 1 may occupy almost the entire sclerite or be absent; T 2 with a broad black band that goes from the base towards the middle surface and bifurcates into a band that goes towards lateral margins and runs along the edge up to the base. This pattern of the band may vary, being restricted to a mark only laterally to a narrow band or even absent. T 1 may have some evident punctures scattered, as long as the basal half of T 2 eventually with some scattered coarse punctures. T 1 may be slightly slender or even more developed laterally to between concave and subparallel.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFBF30BFF309629D15BFC83.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The lectotype female of Eumenes bollii Cresson, 1872 is in good condition, except for the absence of flagellomeres 2 – 10 of the right antenna, and it bears the labels: ‘ Tex’ ‘ [Red Label] TYPE No. \ 2066 - [partially handwritten label] ’ ‘ Eumenes \ Bollii \ Cres [handwritten label] ’. The holotype female of Eumenes bollii var. oregonensis is in excellent condition and bears the labels: ‘ Wawawai. Wash. \ 9: 6; 08: WMMann’ ‘ Eumenes \ bollii var. \ oregonensis \ J. Beq’ ‘ [Red Label] HOLOTYPE \ 35828 \ teste J. M. Carpenter 87 ’ ‘ MCZ-ENT \ 0 0 0 35828 \\ MCZ-ENT \ 00035828 ’. The paratype female of Eumenes bollii var. oregonensis is in excellent condition and bears the labels: ‘ Fallon, NEV. \ Alt. 4000 ft. \ VI. 6.1930 ’ ‘ Collector \ E. L. Bell \ Ace. 30540 ’ ‘ [Red Label] M. C. Z. \ Type \ oregonensis \ ♀ JB’ ‘ Eumenes \ bollii var. \ oregonensis \ ♀ J. Beq. \ paratype’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF8F30EFF3092FAD724FB7F.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype male at MRSN. Type locality: “ Le Brésil ” (see section comments and diagnosis below). de Saussure, 1875, 254: 100. Zavattari, 1912, 78 A (4): 123. Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 18. MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 617, 619 (key). Eberhard, 1990, 63: 342 – 343 (mating behavior). West-Eberhard et al., 1995: 573. Eumenes consobrina; Smith, 1857, 5: 29 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 22 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22 (cat.). Casolari & Casolari Moreno, 1980, (4): 130 (list). Eumenes iturbide de Saussure, 1857, (2) 9: 271. Type data: Holotype female at MHNG (n ° 8851) (examined). Type locality: “ Le Mexique, Meztitlan ” (Mexico). de Saussure, 1875, 254: 98. Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 26 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 23 (cat.). Zavattari, 1912, 78 A (4): 123. Eumenes pedalis Fox, 1894, (2) 4: 109. NEW SYNONYMY Type data: Lectotype male at ANSP (examined). Type locality: “ Lower California El Taste ” (Mexico). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 24 (cat.). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 68 (notes on types), 70 (list). Bohart, 1948, (4) 24 (9): 314 (designation of lectotype). Eumenes (Alpha) globulosiformis Viereck, 1908, 33: 386. Type data: Lectotype female and paralectotype male, by present designation, at KUNHM (examined). Type locality: Holotype and paralectotype: “ Thomas’ Ranch, Oak Creek Canon, 6000 ft., 20 miles southwest of Flagstaff, in Coconino Co., Arizona ”. Isely, 1917, 10: 363. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 67, 69 (note on types). Bohart, 1951: 885.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF8F30EFF3092FAD724FB7F.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype male at USNM (n ° 21384). Type locality: “ Goldstream, British Columbia, Dominion of Canada ”. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 66, 69 (note on type). Bequaert, 1944, 71: 77 (key), 79. Bohart, 1948, (4) 24 (9): 314.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF8F30EFF3092FAD724FB7F.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at USNM (n ° 21385). Type locality: “ Mountain View, Santa Clara Co., Calif. ” (USA). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 67, 69 (note on type). Bohart, 1948, (4) 24 (9): 314. Eumenes iturbide pedalis; Bohart, 1948, (4) 24 (9): 314. Bohart, 1951: 885 (cat.). Krombein, 1979: 1508 (cat.). Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 87 (list). Eumenes iturbide iturbide; Bohart, 1951: 885. Linsley, 1962, 55: 153. Krombein, 1967: 376. Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat.). Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 86 (list). Eumenes consobrinus pedalis; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 24. Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list). Eumenes consobrinus consobrinus; Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF8F30EFF3092FAD724FB7F.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Canada (BC); Costa Rica; Guatemala; Mexico (Baja California Sur, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacán, Morelos, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla); Panama; U. S. A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF8F30EFF3092FAD724FB7F.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis: The type specimen of Eumenes consobrinus de Saussure, 1855, was not examined, but according to our study we confirm the type specimens of E. iturbide de Saussure, 1857, and E. globulosiformis Viereck, 1908, as synonyms of that species. The redescription here was based on an E. iturbide female. According to Giordani Soika (1978: 23), the type locality of E. consobrinus is unknown, although it was described from Brazil (“ Le Brésil ”), but Giordani Soika noted that the locality is certainly wrong. Eumenes consobrinus and E. bollii are the only species that do not have a pronotal carina on the dorsal face of the pronotum. However, the former species can be easily distinguished by the following features: integument predominantly black, with yellow marks mainly on clypeus, inter-antennal region, dorsal face of pronotum, mesepisternum, metanotum, and apex of T 1 – T 6; long pubescence along body, mainly on scape, frons, occipital region, mesosoma, and T 1; coarse and moderately dense punctation on frons, vertex, dorsal surface of mesosoma, mesepisternum, and posterior face of propodeum; dorsal face of T 1 and T 2 with punctation coarse but slightly sparser; T 1 not swollen in dorsal view; and angle of the base of T 2, in lateral view, rising up abruptly, with a sinuosity on the distal third of it. We examined all the type specimens of synonyms of E. consobrinus consobrinus (not the primary type of E. consobrinus) and E. consobrinus pedalis, and a total of 53 non-type specimens (27 females and 26 males, and all male genitalia were extracted and examined) identified as E. consobrinus and we conclude they are one species, although we found a range of intraspecific variation within the species. This leads us to propose E. pedalis Fox, 1894, E. crassicornis Isely, 1917, and E. pachygaster Isely, 1917, as synonyms of E. consobrinus. This variation is described below, along with the main reasons for these synonymies.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF8F30EFF3092FAD724FB7F.taxon	description	Redescription. Holotype Eumenes iturbide, de Saussure, 1857 (Fig. 6) Female. Color, head: Black with yellow marks as follows: two small spots on basal portion of clypeus; a triangular sport right above the inter-antennal region; a small spot on upper half of the gena, adjacent to the compound eye. Brownish marks on apex and tooth of the mandibles and on apex of the labrum. Mesosoma: Black, with yellow marks as follows: small spot on humeral region; a stripe on center region of the dorsal face of the pronotum; entirely tegula; a broad transverse stripe on middle region of metanotum; small marks on distal region of femura; mostly tibiae and tarsi. Metasoma: Black with yellow marks as follows: transverse stripe on apex of T 1 - T 4; spot on apex of T 5 and T 6; transverse stripe on apex of S 2 – S 6. Wings: Hyaline, with costal, medial, submedial cells slightly yellowish; pterostigma darkened; veins brownish. Pubescence: Body covered with long and golden pubescence. Head: long pubescence on the basal half and sides of clypeus, becoming shorter on center and apex. Scape, frons, vertex, occipital region and gena with long pubescence. Gena with shorter pubescence. Surface of F 1 and F 2 (mostly external surface) with scattered and microscopic erect bristles. Mesosoma: Anterior face of coxae (mainly the fore coxa) and all mesosoma with long pubescence, slightly shorter than that on frons and occipital region. Anterior surface of mid and hind coxae with long pubescence but shorter than on fore coxae. Trochanter and basal half of fore femur with scattered erect bristles. Metasoma: T 1 with long pubescence (as in mesosoma) on basal half that becomes shorter towards the apex; T 2 with short pubescence (as on distal half of T 1), although the first third of the sclerite the pubescence is slightly longer; T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 with short pubescence (as or slightly shorter than on distal half of T 2), except for some long bristles on apex. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with coarse and homogeneously distributed punctation; frons, vertex and gena with coarse punctation, on the first two regions moderately dense and on the latter sparser. Mesosoma: Covered by coarse and moderately dense punctation (as on frons), although on posterior face of propodeum it is denser, forming small carinae between each puncture. On anterior portion of the lateral face of the propodeum the punctation is reduced, almost absent. Metasoma: T 1 with coarse punctation but sparser (as on clypeus); T 2 with coarse and moderately dense punctation on basal half that becomes denser towards the pre-apical region, while on the apex (before the lamella) it becomes weaker and sparser. Laterally the punctation becomes weak and sparser. S 2 with some coarse punctures on basal half becoming weaker and sparser towards apex. T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 with reduced punctation or at least some coarse punctures on T 3 and S 3. Structure, head: Apex of the labrum rounded; clypeus as long as wide with the apex concave and forming two projections with carinae on the apex of each one. Inter-antennal region wider than the antennal socket, pointed centrally, with a weak longitudinal carina from the tubercle to the basal suture of the clypeus, but not touching it. Lateral ocelli closer to each other than to the compound eyes; occipital carina complete, angled on middle region of the gena and very close to the compound eyes next to the mandibles. Mesosoma: Dorsal face of pronotum without pronotal carina, although it is present on the lateral face; pronotal fovea present; posterior projection of the tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula flattened laterally, lamelliform; posterior face of the propodeum strongly concave on basal half. A carina on the basal half of the lateral side of the fore coxa. Metasoma: T 1 at least three times longer than wide, not swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 30), slender, with the lateral margins of the distal half weakly concave and the lateral margins of the apex divergent. T 2 as long as wide in dorsal view (Fig. 46), with an apical lamella well developed which runs until the lateral sides of the sclerite. In lateral view, the basal angle of T 2 rises up abruptly (Fig. 59), turning into a strong concavity on the middle portion of it and then lowering again forming a clear sinuosity on the pre-apical region of the T 2. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 long, without longitudinal carina on dorsal surface, with the apex pointed surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 80). Ventral surface with microscopic bristles. S 7 apically flat with moderately long bristles at the edge. Color, pubescence, punctation and structure (except for those cited above) same as in females, including the variation. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 96 a, b. Two varying features found in the aedeagus were: the concavity of the posterior margin of the ventral lobe more or less strong, the same occurring in the middle region in dorsal view. Paramere (fig. 96 c) with long bristles in the middle region of gonostyle; digitus long, becoming slender towards the apex, with moderately long bristles at the base and slightly shorter towards apex (fig. 113); long bristles on ventral edge of volsella and scattered short bristles; distal lobe truncate, without evident bristles; cuspis with scattered erect bristles. Variation: Yellow marks as follows: apical third of the clypeus entirely yellow; small spot on inter-antennal region; a stripe along all the anterior region of the pronotum; a big spot on the upper half of the mesepisternum, right next to the mesepimeron; small and narrow band on each side of mesoscutum, adjacent to the edge of it, right in front of tegula; spots on each side of scutellum; spots on each side of the upper region of the posterior face of propodeum, which vary in size, sometimes occupying most of the region; spots on each side of T 1, varying in size; marks laterally on T 2, which may be a spot or a band that goes towards the dorsal surface, being almost contiguous. Some specimens have the apical third of T 2 with whitish pubescence, better observed in oblique view. We also observed a range of variation in the punctation: some specimens have the punctation of T 1 sparser, as on T 2, which also may have weak punctures even sparser, mainly towards the lateral face. In some specimens, the integument on T 1 and T 2 is more polished and shiny or with violaceous reflections mainly on lateral surface. In terms of structure, some specimens have T 1 more swollen in dorsal view and slightly shorter, with the lateral margins, in dorsal view, varying to more or less concave, sometimes almost subparallel; T 2 in dorsal view sometimes broader; basal angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up strongly, almost perpendicular, to less strong, but still obtuse. The sinuosity on the distal third of T 2 may be also very strong or less sinuous. The apical projections of the clypeus from the males may have strong or weaker carinae. The lectotype of E. pedalis Fox, 1894 has the pubescence of T 1 and T 2 (in lateral view) slightly shorter than in the nominotypical taxon, and are the only specimens collected in Lower California (Mexico). As we did not have access to the male genitalia and any other specimens (Fox, 1894, saw seven specimens), this may be additional variation within the species. We also examined a few specimens from California that showed the same pattern as E. crucifera and E. verticalis, with the punctation of T 2 and sparse and yellow marks more developed, especially on the metasoma. All the variation cited above was found within females and / or males, across the range of distribution of the species, from Panama to southwestern Canada. We observed what might be a consistent pattern in some populations: most specimens analyzed from California, Wyoming, Washington (one being the type specimen female of E. pachygaster, from California) and Canada (the type specimen male of E. crassicornis) have T 2 generally broader in dorsal view with the punctation sparser, slightly weaker, and T 1 more swollen in dorsal view. The specimens from California mainly presented the yellow marks more developed along the body. The specimens from Mexico and the central-southwest region of USA generally present less yellow marks along the body, coarse and dense punctation, and T 1 less swollen in dorsal view, but there was one female from Oregon which also presented this variation. Various specimens across the distribution present combinations of the variation cited above. We extracted the genitalia from all male specimens that we studied and compared these males with all the features that we found in females (including the geographical region) and we did not find any significant differences, at most there were some small differences in the aedeagus. Considering this fact, there is no set of features in females or males that could allow us to separate different populations and consequently different species from E. consobrinus. Thus, we conclude that is taxonomically more prudent to treat E. consobrinus as a single species with intraspecific variation.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFF8F30EFF3092FAD724FB7F.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The holotype female of Eumenes iturbide is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Meztill \ t. t. ’ ‘ [Red Label] ♀ Holo- \ TYPE \ E. iturbide \ Sauss. ’ ‘ MHNG \ ENTO \ 00008851 ’. The lectotype female of Eumenes globulosiformis Viereck, 1908 is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Oak Creek Canon \ Ariz. 6000 ft. Aug \ F. H. Snow’ ‘ 1716 ’ ‘ [Red Label] Eumenes (Alpha) \ globulosiformis \ Type Vier’. The paralectotype male of Eumenes globulosiformis Viereck, 1908 is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ S. Arizona. \ F. H. Snow. \ Aug. 1902. ’ ‘ 228 ’ ‘ [Red Label] Eumenes (Alpha) \ globulosiformis \ Type Vier’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFDF30FFF3095A1D1AAF9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type male at CAS (n ° 5378) (examined). Paratype male at USNM (n ° 56539). Type locality: “ Coyotae Cove, Concepcion Bay, Lower California ” (Holotype and paratype). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618. Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFDF30FFF3095A1D1AAF9AB.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Mexico (Baja California Sur).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFDF30FFF3095A1D1AAF9AB.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. Eumenes coyotae Bohart, 1948, is identified by the following features: body with predominantly ferrugineous background color; T 1 long, slender, and with reduced, almost absent, punctation; and the basal half of T 2 also with reduced punctation, while on the apical half the punctation becomes coarse and dense. This species is apparently restricted to Baja California Sur.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFDF30FFF3095A1D1AAF9AB.taxon	description	Redescription. Holotype Eumenes coyotae Bohart, 1948 (Fig. 7) Male. Color, head: Yellow marks as follows: mandibles; inter-antennal region; a broad band on inner margin of compound eye that goes from the base of the clypeus to the ocular sinus; a band adjacent to the external margin of the compound eye. Ocelli region with black mark. Frons and vertex (behind the yellow band on gena) ferrugineous. Antenna ferrugineous-yellowish. Mesosoma: predominantly ferrugineous, with yellow marks as follows: broad band along the pronotal carina on dorsal face of pronotum; a mark on upper half of mesepisternum, adjacent to the mesepimeron; parategula; a band on apical third of scutellum; metanotum; marks on femora, almost entirely tibiae and tarsi, although the distal tarsi become brownish darker. Metasoma: ferrugineous, except for a black mark on basal region; with yellow marks as follows: narrow transverse band on apex of T 1; broad band on each side of T 2 and a band occupying the apical third of it; apical half of S 2; T 3 – T 7 and S 3 – S 7 (with a transverse dark band on apex). Small black mark on the base of T 2. Wings: Hyaline, with costal, medial and submedial cells yellowish. Pterostigma and veins dark brownish. Pubescence, head: Golden and moderately long pubescence on frons, vertex and occipital region. Clypeus and gena with short and whitish pubescence, better observed in oblique view. Scape with short (as in clypeus) golden pubescence. Mesosoma: Pronotum, mesoscutum, scutellum and metanotum with short golden pubescence. Mesepisternum and posterior face of propodeum with whitish pubescence, better observed in oblique view. On posterior face of propodeum the pubescence is longer, as in frons. Metasoma: Golden and shortest pubescence along body, except for some scattered bristles on ventral face of T 1 and apex of each segment. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with punctation mostly on basal two-thirds; frons and vertex with coarse and dense punctation, becoming sparser behind the ocelli. Mesosoma: Coarse and dense punctation as on frons. Metasoma: T 1 with reduced punctation, at least with some more evident on apex; basal half of T 2 with weak punctation, very sparse, while the apical half the punctures becomes coarse and clearly denser. S 2 with evident punctation on lateral portions. T 3 – T 7 and S 3 – S 7 without evident punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide. Apex of clypeus concave, forming two projections with carina on apex of each one. Inter-antennal region longitudinally cariniform, narrow than the antennal socket. Lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other. Occipital carina well developed, not angled on middle area of gena. F 11 short, without longitudinal carina on dorsal surface, with the apex pointed and surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 81). Ventral surface with microscopic bristles on apex. Mesosoma: Pronotal carina present dorsally, weak developed, while on lateral portion it becomes more developed. Pronotal fovea present. Posterior projection of tegula weak developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum moderately concave. Metasoma: T 1 more than three times longer than wide, slender, weakly swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 31). T 2 globose, longer than wide (Fig. 47), with the basal angle (in lateral view) rising up abruptly. Apical lamella present and becoming reduced towards lateral margins. S 7 flattened apically. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as on figure 97 a, b. Paramere (Fig. 97 c) with long bristles on middle region of the gonostyle; cuspis with thin, long and dense pubescence; digitus slender on apex, with short bristles on ventral surface (Fig. 114); volsella with short (shorter than on cuspis) and denser pubescence; distal lobe with a few erect bristles on apex. Female: Black marks as follows: marks on frons more developed, reaching the vertex; small spot on mesepimeron; narrow, sticklike band longitudinally on mesoscutum and a small spot on the base; broad transverse band between two yellow band on middle area. Pubescence and punctation as on males. Labrum with the apex rounded; clypeus as long as wide; inter-antennal region as long as the antennal socket. All other structure as in males.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFDF30FFF3095A1D1AAF9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The holotype of Eumenes coyotae is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Coyotae Cove \ Concepcion Bay, \ L. Cal. X- 1 - 41 ’ ‘ Ross & Bohart \ Collectors’ ‘ [Red Label] Eumenes \ coyotae \ R. Bohart’ ‘ California Academy \ of Sciences \ Type No. 5378 ’. The paratype male (AMNH) is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Ross & Bohart \ Collectors’ ‘ Eumenes \ coyotae \ Bohart \ R. Bohart det. ’. Two paratype males (UCD) are in good condition and bear the labels: ‘ Coyote Cove \ Conception Bay \ L. Cal. VI- 29 - 38 ’ ‘ Michelbacher & \ Ross Collectors’ ‘ Eumenes \ coyotae \ R. Bohart’; ‘ Espiritu Santo \ I. Golf. Calif. \ June 9 1921 ’ ‘ E P Van Duzee \ Collector’ ‘ Eumenes \ coyotae \ R. Bohart’. The paratype male (USNM) is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Coyotae Cove, \ Concepcion Bay, \ L. Cal. X- 1 - 41 ’ ‘ Rose & Bohart \ Collectors’ ‘ Eumenes \ coyotae \ R. Bohart det. ’ ‘ [Red Label] Paratype \ 56539 \ USNM.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at MHNG (examined). Paratype female at USNM. Type locality: “ L’Amérique du Nord ” (Holotype). “ Colorado ” (Paratype). de Saussure, 1875, 254: 101. Cresson, 1887: 287 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 25 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 23 (cat.). Bequaert, 1928, 101: 1004. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 62 (key), 63. Bequaert, 1943, 38 (2): 43.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at USNM (n ° 1977) (examined). Three paratypes (two males and one female) at USNM (examined). Type locality: “ Los Angeles ” (Holotype). Two males and one female from California (Los Angeles Co.). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 22 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22 (cat.). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 69 (note on type). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618, 620 (key). Buck et al., 2008, 5: 44 (key), 155. Eumenes (Alpha) marginilineatus Viereck, 1907, 33: 381. Type data: Type male at KUNHM (examined). Type locality: Este’s Park, Larimer County, Colorado (USA). Viereck, 1908, 33: 388 (emarginilineatus [!]). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 69 (note on type). Eumenes (Pachymenes) bolliformis Viereck, 1908, 33: 387. NEW STATUS. Type data: Lectotype, by present designation, female and Paralectotype at KUNHM. Type locality: “ S. Arizona ” (both lectotype and paralectotype).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at USNM (n ° 21382). Type locality: “ Beulah, San Miguel Co., N. M. ” Bequaert, 1938, 33: 70 (note on types). Bequaert, 1944, 71: 81. Bohart, 1951: 884.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at USNM (n ° 21380) (examined). Type locality: U. S. A. (Beaver Canyon, Utah). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 70 (note on types).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype male at USNM (n ° 21381) (examined). Type locality: U. S. A. (Los Angeles, California). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 70 (note on type). Eumenes bolliformis; Isely, 1917, 10: 347 (key), 352. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 68 (note on type). Eumenes marginilineatus; Isely, 1917, 10: 363.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at MCZ (n ° 33184) (examined). Type locality: “ Cypress Hills, Alberta ” (Canada). Eumenes crucifera stricklandi; Bohart, 1951: 884 (cat.). Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat.). Eumenes crucifera bolliformis; Bohart, 1951: 884 (cat.). Linsley, 1962, 55: 153. Krombein, 1967: 376. Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 28. Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618, 621 (key). Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 86 (list). Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list). Eumenes crucifera crucifera; Bohart, 1951: 884 (cat.). Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618. Eumenes crucifera nearcticus; Bohart, 1951: 884 (cat.). Krombein, 1958: 163. Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Mexico (Chihuahua); Canada (Alberta, British Columbia *; Manitoba *, New Brunswick *, New Scotia *, Northwest Territory *, Quebec *, Ontario); USA (AZ, CA, CO, CT *, ID, IL *, IN, KY *, MA *, ME, MI, MN, MO, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH *, OR *, PE, SC, SD, UT, VT *, WA *, WI, WY). * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis: Eumenes crucifera Provancher, 1888 (Fig. 8) can be identified by having long and golden pubescence along the body; punctation on the clypeus; black integument with yellow marks varying in size (see variation section below); T 2 wide, with the lateral margins strongly concave (Fig. 48); and mainly by the posterior face of the propodeum weakly concave. The species has a wide distribution across the USA and Canada, and consequently we observed a range of variation mainly in coloration, which previous authors used to justify the description of various subspecies. We had access to all the type specimens of the typical E. crucifera and its subspecies, except for the holotype of E. crucifera flavitinctus, of which we examined four paratypes (females and males). It is important to highlight that one specimen deposited at USNM (n ° 21382), labeled as paratype of E. crucifera, is actually a non-type specimen, as Provancher did not mention a paratype from Oregon. A total of 361 specimens were examined, females and males, and the genitalia from all the subspecies were extracted and examined. As a result, we observed that the same range of variation that occurs in E. verticalis also exists for E. crucifera, which has an extensive geographical distribution that causes intra-specific variation among the specimens, including some overlapping morphological characters. All the variation examined was found in the bolliformis, nearcticus and stricklandi subspecies (the particulars are discussed in the variation section) in various combinations; the male genitalia were compared in each form and presented no significant differences. Therefore, to avoid treating those names as a subspecific category based just on color differences, which is known to be unreliable (MacLean et al., 1978; Carpenter, 1988; Carpenter and van der Vecht, 1991; Carpenter and Garcete- Barrett, 2003), we propose the synonymy of E. c. bolliformis, E. c. nearcticus and E. c. stricklandi under E. crucifera and treat these names as variations of the typical species as a consequence of the great geographical distribution of this species. Finally, we elevated the subspecies E. c. flavitinctus to specific level based on features that are discussed in the redescription of that species.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	description	Redescription. Holotype Eumenes crucifera Provancher, 1888 (Fig. 8) Female. Color, head: Black, with apex the tooth of mandibles brown. Yellow marks as follows: apex of labrum; clypeus, except for a blackish spot on the center region; inter-antennal region; short and narrow stripe on upper half of the gena, adjacent to the compound eye; broad longitudinal stripe on scape. Mesosoma: Black with yellow marks as follows: anterior portion of the dorsal face of pronotum; wide spot on upper half of the mesepisternum, adjacent to the mesepimeron; tegula (with a translucent spot on center of it); a triangular shaped spot on each side of mesoscutum and a mark on the center region of it; metanotum, except for a narrow stripe on the basal edge; wide spot on each side of upper half of the propodeum; a small spot on mid coxa; distal half of femur, with some brownish marks; entirely tibiae and tarsi, which becomes darker towards apex. Metasoma: T 1 black with two big yellow spots on center region and a transverse stripe on apex of T 1 and S 1. T 2 yellow with a black “ T ” on dorsal face of it. T 3 – T 6 entirely yellow with a transverse narrow brownish stripe on apex. S 2 with basal half blackish and narrow stripes on the lateral margins almost reaching the apex; S 3 – S 6 with black marks on basal half. Wings: Hyaline with costal, medial and submedial yellow. Pterostigma and veins brownish. Pubescence, head: Frons, vertex, gena, scape and occipital region with long and golden pubescence (longer on frons and occipital region). The pubescence on scape is the shortest regarding those other regions. Clypeus with long and slightly whitish (better observed in oblique view) pubescence mostly on basal and lateral regions, while on apex it is shorter. Mesosoma: All covered with golden and long (as on frons) pubescence. Anterior surface of coxae with long and golden pubescence, longer on fore coxa and shorter on hind coxa. Scattered erect golden bristles on trochanter and basal half of the fore femur. Metasoma: T 1 covered with golden and long pubescence, longer on basal half. T 2 covered with golden pubescence, longer on basal third, becoming shorter towards apex. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 covered with short and golden pubescence, except for some long bristles on apex. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with and sparse punctation mainly on basal half. Frons and vertex with coarse punctation, moderately dense, becoming weaker and sparser behind the ocelli. Mesosoma: Dorsal face of pronotum, mesoscutum, scutelum and metanotum with coarse and moderately dense punctation, as in frons. Mesepisternum with coarse punctation as mesosucutum but slightly sparser. Posterior face of propodeum with coarse and denser punctation, forming carinae between the punctures. Posterior half from the lateral face of propodeum with coarse but sparser punctation, while on the anterior half the punctation is reduced. Metasoma: Dorsal and ventral face of T 1 with coarse and moderately dense (sparser than mesoscutum) punctation mainly on apical two-third; dorsal face of T 2 with weaker and sparser punctation regardless T 1, and the punctation becomes and sparser towards the lateral face. Basal half of S 2 with (more than in dorsal face of T 2) scattered punctation. T 3 – T 6 with punctation as in S 2, and S 3 – S 6 with no evident punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus weakly convex, slightly longer than wide with the apex concave, forming two rounded projections with a weak carina on apex of each projection (Fig. 68). Inter-antennal region longitudinally cariniform, as wide as the diameter of antennal socket. Lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes more than to each other. Occipital carina well developed along all its extension, being slightly angled on middle region of gena. Mesosoma: Pronotal carina present, weakly developed on dorsal face and stronger on lateral face; pronotal fovea present; mesepimeron slightly elevated when compared to the mesepisternum level; tegula with posterior emargination weakly developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform. Posterior face of propodeum moderately concave on basal half. Fore coxa with a longitudinal carina; posterior face of the propodeum concave on lower half. Metasoma: T 1 about two times longer than wide, strongly swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 32), with the lateral margins subparallel on the distal half, except on the apex which is slightly divergent. Base of T 2, in lateral view, rising up abruptly; apical third of T 2, in lateral view, with a weak sinuosity before the apex; T 2 as long as wide in dorsal view; in dorsal view (Fig. 48), the lateral margins of T 2 are strongly concave on middle region; lamella on apex of T 2 present. Male: Clypeus narrower than females (Fig. 69). Sometimes the males of E. crucifera may confused with those from E. verticalis, but they can be rightly separated from them by the absence of the microscopic bristles on the ventral surface of F 11. Furthermore, males of E. crucifera present the F 11 long, broad basally, with the apex pointed, surpassing the apical edge of F 8, sometimes reaching the basal edge of it (in E. verticalis it reaches only the apical edge) (fig. 82). Dorsal surface with a longitudinal carina. Ventral surface without microscopic erect bristles, different from E. verticalis, which have them. The lateral margins of T 2 usually are not so concave as on females. S 7 flattened apically, with some moderately long bristles scattered on apex (also on T 7). Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 98 a, b. The dorsal margim may vary between less to strongly angled, as we observed in E. consobrinus and E. verticalis. Paramere (fig. 98 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus long, surpassing the middle region of the gonostyle, with short bristles on apex, becoming moderately longer towards base (Fig. 115). Distal lobe truncate, without evident bristles. Cuspis with long (longer than on digitus) and erect bristles. Volsella with long bristles (longer than on cuspis) on the ventral edge and scattered short bristles. Variation, color: The color variation listed was observed also in specimens from the same localities. Clypeus entirely black, except for small marks on each side on the basal half and sometimes on apical half (NM, NV, UT), or entirely yellow; yellow marks on scape, pronotum, mesepisternum, scutellum, T 1 may be reduced or sometimes absent; yellow mark on central area of scutellum may be absent; black mark on T 2 may be covering all the basal half, with just a broad yellow band on each lateral margin; or black mark on S 2 may be covering almost the entire sclerite. Pubescence: Pubescence on apical half of T 2 may be slightly longer (as long as on basal half). Surface of integument: punctation on clypeus may be more evident (specimens from the same localities varied between less and more evident punctures); punctation of T 2 may be stronger, although some specimens outside of California presented punctures as in the typical pattern (NV, UT, ID, WY). Structure: posterior face of propodeum may vary from weakly to strongly concave; generally concave in males. T 1 may be shorter and more developed on apex or longer; lateral margins of T 1 more concave; some specimens presented an elevation on the middle region of T 2 (better observed in lateral view), which produces a weak sinuosity on the apical third (not so evident as on E. consobrinus). We observed in two specimens that the sinuosity was strong, but this was clearly caused by a malformation of the sclerite that produced the impression of a strong sinuosity; the lateral margins of T 2 may be less concave, mainly in males; and some specimens may present the basal angle of T 2 rising up weakly, as in the type specimen of E. sternalis. Viereck (1908) described E. bolliformis (lectotype and paralectotype designated herein) (Fig. 9), which was considered by Bohart (1951) as a subspecies of E. crucifera, identified by its ferrugineous color adjacent to the yellow marks along the body (mainly on the mesosoma, T 1, and T 2), and the coarse punctation of T 2. The type of E. crucifera is from California and shows a pattern of strongly developed yellow marks and the punctation of T 2 often weaker. As the distribution goes to the central-east regions, the punctation becomes stronger and the yellow marks often are less developed, although this variation was not a pattern for some specimens from those regions (see variation section). Besides the ferrugineous marks, we also observed for E. bolliformis that the specimens often present the lateral margins of T 1 more concave and the posterior face of propodeum also with the concavity more developed. However, this pattern could not justify a subspecies rank because we observed typical crucifera mainly from Utah and Colorado that also showed these features, including some ferrugineous marks adjacent to the yellow marks, apparently like a “ transitional species ”. As southern specimens were examined, the ferrugineous marks became more developed and the concavity of the posterior face of the propodeum stronger, although it was variable. One specimen identified as bolliformis was recorded from California and as expected it showed more developed yellow marks (with ferrugineous), but the punctation of T 2 is weaker. Finally, we compared the genitalia from males of typical crucifera and bolliformis and we did not find any difference that would be enough to separate the subspecies into different species. Therefore, we propose to treat E. bolliformis as a synonymous variant of E. crucifera. We examined the holotype of E. globulosus (Fig. 10) and, as we observed in E. verticalis, the specimens from Canada and northern to central-west regions of USA presented a pattern with reduced yellow marks on the body. All the variation, especially on T 1, the posterior face of propodeum, and punctation of T 2, was observed on the specimens identified as E. crucifera nearcticus. As we did not find any pattern to treat it as a different species from the typical species, we propose to treat nearcticus as a variant of E. crucifera. Furthermore, the differences in yellow marks are more visible in females, while males often have the yellow marks reduced and less variable. Some females presented the clypeus with coarse punctation, which may lead them to be confused with E. verticalis (mostly the neoboreus variation), but the latter species still presents the clypeus with punctures clearly more evident, T 1 is usually less swollen in dorsal view and the lateral margins of T 2 are less concave. Eumenes crucifera stricklandi (Fig. 11) is known only from the type specimen and besides the yellow-creamy marks on metasoma, there is no difference in pubescence, punctation, and structure compared to typical E. crucifera. We did not examine any males of the subspecies, but propose to treat it also as a variant of E. crucifera.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFFCF313FF309792D674F9AB.taxon	materials_examined	Type material: The holotype of Eumenes crucifera (female) is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Los Angeles \ Co. CAL. (C) ’ ‘ 178 ’ ‘ [red label] Type No \ 1977 \ USNM’ ‘ [red label] Type \ No. 1977 \ U. S. N. M. [partially handwritten label] ’ ‘ E. c. \ crucifera \ Prov. ’ ‘ DO NOT REMOVE \ SI DB Reference \ Not a property tag \ T. Schultz. NMHN \\ USNM ENT \ 0 0 537193 [bar code] ’ ‘ Loan from \ USNMNH \ 2073492 ’. The paratypes at USNM are in good condition and bear the labels: ‘ Los Angeles \ Co. CAL. (C) ’ ‘ [Red Label] Paratype \ No. 21381 \ U. S. N. M. ’ ‘ Eumenes crucifera crucifera \ R. Bohart` 44 Prov’; ‘ Los Angeles \ Co. CAL. (C) ’ ‘ [Red Label] Paratype \ No. 21381 \ U. S. N. M. ’; ‘ 178 ’ ‘ Los Angeles \ Co., Cal. ’ ‘ Collection \ Coquillett’ ‘ [Red Label] Type No \ 1977 \ USNM’ ‘ Eumenes \ crucifera \ Prov. ’. The holotype of Eumenes xanthogaster (male) is in bad condition with the metasoma broken (glued on a label), and lacking the left F 2 – F 11. The holotype female of Eumenes globulosus is in bad condition, missing the apical tarsi of the right fore leg, entirely mid right leg, all tarsi of the right hind leg and the flagellum of the both antenna. Bears the labels: ‘ Amer. Sept. ’ ‘ [Red Label] Holo- \ TYPE \ ♀ globulosus \ Saussure’ ‘ MHNG \ ENTO \ 00008850 ’. The paratype female (USNM) is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Ft. Collins \ Col. 1047 ’ ‘ Eumenes ♀ \ globulosus Sauss. ’ ‘ [Red Label] Paratype \ No. 21382 \ U. S. N. M. ’. The holotype female of Eumenes coloradensis stricklandi is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Cypress Hills, Alta. \ 10 VIII 1939 \ E. H. Stricklandi’ ‘ [Red Label] M. C. Z. \ Holotype \ stricklandi \ ♀ ’ ‘ Eumenes \ coloradensis \ var. \ stricklandi \ J. Beq’ ‘ [Red Label] M. C. Z. \ Holotype \ 33184 ’ ‘ MCZ-ENT \ 00033184 ’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE0F315FF309792D282FE57.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type female unknown. Type locality: “ Cuba. ” de Saussure, 1875, 254: 102. Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 22. Ashmead, 1900, 1900: 22. Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22. Zavattari, 1912, 78 A 4: 123. Bequaert, 1928, (10) 2: 162. Alayo, 1971, 1971: 24. Eumenes ferrugineus Cresson, 1865, 4: 158. de Saussure, 1875, 254: 98. Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 22. Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22. Bequaert, 1928, (10) 2: 162. Alayo, 1971, 1971: 24.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE0F315FF309792D282FE57.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Cuba.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE0F315FF309792D282FE57.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis (Fig. 13) Cresson (1865) stated that the type was in the Gundlach collection in Havana, but according to Alayo (1973) it is probably not there, but rather in Philadelphia. As we did not have access to the type specimen of Eumenes cubensis, the redescription was made based on specimens present in the AMNH (two females and one male). Color, head: Yellow marks as follows: mandibles; labrum; clypeus (with a narrow translucent band along the free apex); inter-antennal region and right above it; broad band that goes from the base of the clypeus through all the edge of the compound eye. Part of frons and posterior region of vertex brownish. Antenna yellow with brownish marks. Mesosoma: Brownish, with yellow marks as follows: broad band on anterior portion of pronotum, dorsally and laterally; triangular marks on each side of apical half of mesoscutum; tegula (surrounding by a narrow translucent band); parategula; medial surface of mesepisternum; wide mark on upper half of scutellum; metanotum; wide yellow mark on sides of posterior face of propodeum; part of femora; tibiae and tarsi (although distal tarsi become dark brownish). Metasoma: Basal half of T 1 black and a broad yellow transverse band on apex. Between these two areas, brownish marks. T 2 brownish with a broad yellow band on middle surface, which is contiguous laterally with an apical and transverse band. Basal half of S 2 brownish and apical half yellow. T 3 – T 6 brownish (except for an apical yellow band on T 3); S 3 – S 6 brownish with yellow marks on S 6. Wings: Hyaline, with pterostigma, costal, medial and submedial cells yellow. Veins brownish basally, becoming black near apex.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE0F315FF309792D282FE57.taxon	description	Pubescence, head: Frons and vertex with moderately long and golden pubescence. Gena and scape with short golden pubescence. Clypeus with short (slightly longer than on gena and scape), whitish pubescence, better observed in oblique view. Mesosoma: Dorsal surface of pronotum, scutellum and metanotum with moderately long (shorter than fron) golden pubescence. Posterior face of propodeum with slightly longer whitish pubescence. Lateral surface of mesosoma with very short and whitish pubescence. Basal half of fore femur with scattered golden and moderately long bristles. Metasoma: Covered with very short (as laterally on mesosoma) golden pubescence, except for some erect bristles on ventral face of T 1 and apex of subsequent segments. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with punctation, hard to observe due the yellow color. Frons and vertex with coarse and dense, becoming reduced behind the ocelli. Gena without evident punctation. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and dense punctation as on frons, except for anterior and posterior surface of mesepisternum. Metasoma: T 1 with coarse (not strong as in mesosoma) punctation, very spares on basal half, becoming denser towards apex. T 2 with coarse punctation (as on T 1), moderately dense on dorsal surface, becoming reduced and very sparse towards lateral margins. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 without evident punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide. Apex concave, forming two rounded projections with weak carinae on apex of each one. Inter-antennal region slightly wider than the antennal socket, longitudinally cariniform; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other; occipital carina well developed, angled on middle region of gena and distant to the compound eye near the mandible. Mesosoma: Pronotal carina present dorsally and laterally; pronotal fovea present; posterior projection of tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; lateral carina on upper half of the external face of fore coxae short and weak; concavity on posterior face of propodeum weakly developed. Metasoma: T 1 slender (Fig. 33), more than three times longer than wide, weakly swollen in dorsal view; T 2 longer than wide, with the lateral margins moderately concave (Fig. 49). Basal angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up about 45 ° regarding S 2 axis. Apex of T 2 with an apical lamella which becomes reduced towards apex. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 very short (the shortest among all the species), without longitudinal carina on dorsal surface, basally broad with the apex pointed, not surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 83). Ventral surface without microscopic erect bristles. S 7 flattened apically. Punctation on T 1 and T 2 coarser than on females. Pubescence as on females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus with the lateral projections from the apex distant from each other (Fig. 99 a, b), different from E. americanus and E. smithii which are close to each other (Fig. 93 b, 104 b). Apical projection rounded (Fig. 99 a). Paramere (Fig. 99 c) with long bristles on middle area of gonostyle; digitus very slender on apex (similar to E. americanus and E. smithii) with scattered short bristles; cuspis with thin, long, and dense bristles; distal lobe strongly projecting, reaching the middle area of the gonostyle with the apex rounded; a few long (as long as on cuspis) and erect bristles on the edge of the distal lobe; volsella with reduced bristles, mostly on distal region, near digitus.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE6F316FF309089D3CDFB7F.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype male CUIC. Paratype female at USNM; Three paratypes (two females and one male) at UCD. Type locality: “ Blythe, California ”. Bohart, 1951: 884 (cat.). Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618, 621 (key).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE6F316FF309089D3CDFB7F.taxon	distribution	Distribution: USA (CA).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE6F316FF309089D3CDFB7F.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. Eumenes flavitinctus was considered a subspecies of E. crucifera, but we propose herein to treat it at the specific level, based not only on the extreme color difference, but also the following features in comparison to E. crucifera: pubescence shorter along body, especially on T 1 and T 2; pubescence on anterior face of coxae clearly shorter; and T 1 long and slender. All the records for this species are restricted to southern California.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE6F316FF309089D3CDFB7F.taxon	description	Redescription. Eumenes flavitinctus Bohart, 1950, Revised Status (Fig. 14) Female. Color, head: Yellow marks: mandibles; labrum (slightly darkened); clypeus; inter-antennal region and above it up to ocular sinus level; a broad band from the base of clypeus to the ocular sinus; gena; scape. Black marks around the ocelli. Frons (except for where yellow and black marks are) brownish. Pedicel and flagellum brownish with blackish marks mostly on apical flagellomeres. Mesosoma: entirely yellow. Mesoscutum brownish, except for a yellow triangular mark on each side of it and small marks on center. Brownish marks on posterior portion of dorsal face of pronotum. Brownish and translucent marks on central area of tegula. Legs brownish with brownish marks on coxae and distal region of femora. Tibiae and tarsi yellow, although the tarsi become brownish towards apex. Metasoma: T 1 brownish with yellow spots on each side of middle region and a transverse yellow band on apex. T 1 yellow with brownish mark on basal region and a transverse band on middle area, running towards lateral margins. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 yellow. Wings: Hyaline, with costal, medial and submedial cells yellowish. Pterostigma and veins brownish. Pubescence, head: Frons, vertex and occipital region with moderately long and golden pubescence. Clypeu with moderately long golden pubescence (shorter than on frons), becoming shorter towards apex. Short (shorter than on frons) golden pubescence on gena. Mesosoma: covered with moderately long (slightly shorter than on frons) pubescence: golden on pronotum and mesoscutum; scutellum, metanotum, posterior face of propodeum and lateral of mesosoma whitish pubescence. On posterior face of propodeum the pubescence becomes as long as on frons. Basal half of fore femur with scattered erect golden bristles. Metasoma: Covered with and golden pubescence. On T 1 the pubescence is longer on basal half, becoming shorter towards apex (better observed in lateral view); T 2 with short pubescence on basal region, becoming shorter towards apex (both ways shorter than T 1); S 2 with very short pubescence and some scattered erect bristles; T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 also with short pubescence and long bristles on apex region. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus and gena with coarse punctation (hard to observe due the yellow color); frons and vertex with coarse and dense punctation, becoming sparser behind the ocelli. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and dense punctation (as on frons). Metasoma: Basal third of T 1 without evident punctation; apical two thirds with coarse and moderately dense punctation (sparser than on mesosoma); T 2 with coarse punctation on dorsal surface, moderately dense on basal half (as on T 1), becoming denser on apical half. On the lateral margins the punctation becomes weaker and very sparse. S 2 with scattered evident punctures. T 3 – T 5 with evident punctures (as on S 2), moderately dense. T 6, S 3 – S 6 with weak punctures. Structure, head: Labrum with the apex rounded; clypeus convex, longer than wide, with the apex concave forming two projections, rounded, with weak carinae on apex. Inter-antennal region with a protuberance on center area; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eye than to each other; occipital carina well developed, angled on middle region of gena and moderately distant to the compound eye next to the mandibles. Mesosoma: Pronotal carina present dorsally and laterally; pronotal fovea present; posterior projection of the tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum moderately concave. A short carina on upper region of the external face of the fore coxae. Metasoma: T 1 slender, about three times wide than long (Fig. 34), weakly swollen in dorsal view, with the lateral margins on apical half slightly concave. T 2 wider than long with the lateral margins strongly concave (Fig. 50). Apex of T 2 with a well-developed lamella, becoming reduced towards lateral margins. Basal angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up abruptly. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 long, basally broad, with the apex pointed surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 84). Dorsal surface with a weak longitudinal carina. Ventral surface without erect bristles. Pubescence, punctation and other structure as in females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 100 a, b. Paramere (Fig. 100 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus long with short bristles sparsely distributed (Fig. 117); cuspis with moderately long and erect bristles (longer than on digitus); volsella with long bristles on the ventral edge and scattered short bristles; distal lobe truncate, without bristles. Variation: Brownish marks that vary in size may be present on the mesepimeron and the anterior and posterior regions of the mesepisternum. Yellow marks on the mesoscutum and T 1 may be more developed. One of the paratypes has the body entirely reddish, but we believe this to be an artifact of the conservation of the specimen (“ cyaniding ”). This was also observed in other species with yellow markings.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE6F316FF309089D3CDFB7F.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The paratype female (USNM) is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Blythe, Calif. \ Riverside Co. \ VII. 30.1947 ’ ‘ J. W. MacSwain \ Collector’ ‘ Eumenes \ crucifera \ flavitinctus \ R. Bohart’ ‘ [Red Label] Paratype No. \ 611.50 \ U. S. N. M. ’. The three paratypes (two females and one male; UCD) are in good and bear the labels, respectively: ‘ Palm Springs \ Riverside Co., Calif \ VI- 22 - 1945 ’ ‘ Hiptioemoryi’ ‘ Eumenes \ crucifera \ flavitinctus \ R. Bohart’ ‘ Eumenes \ crucifera ♀ \ flavitinctus Boh \ det. R. M. Bohart’; ‘ Blythe, Calif. \ Riverside Co. \ VII. 30.1947 ’ ‘ J. W. MacSwain \ Collector’ ‘ Eumenes \ crucifera \ flavitinctus \ R. Bohart’; ‘ Blythe, Calif. \ Riverside Co. \ VII. 30.1947 ’ ‘ J. W. MacSwain \ Collector’ ‘ Eumenes \ crucifera Ƌ \ flavitinctus \ R. Bohart’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE5F318FF3095A1D74AF9D7.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type destroyed. Type locality: “ United States ... Pennsylvania ... North-west Territory and Missouri ”. Harris, 1848, 10: 225. de Saussure, 1852, 1: 40. Cresson, 1872, 4: 232. Walsh & Riley, 1869, 1: 138. Riley, 1870: 103. Couper, 1871, 3: 62. de Saussure, 1875, 254: 95. Riley, 1880, 3: 180. Saunders, 1882: 281. Provancher, 1882, 13: 144. Riley, 1883: 117. Cresson 1887: 287 (cat.). Southwick, 1892: 107. Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 24 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22 (cat.). Tucker, 1909, 22: 286. Viereck, 1916, 22: 635. Bequaert, 1928, 101: 1004. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 61 (key), 69. Bequaert and Taylor, 1942, 42: 67. Bequaert, 1944, 71: 78 (key), 85. Bohart, 1951: 884 (cat.). Krombein, 1979: 1507 (cat). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618, 620 (key). Ahlstrom, 1995, 1: 102 (list). Buck et al., 2008, 5: 44 (key), 154.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE5F318FF3095A1D74AF9D7.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Lectotype, by present designation, female at MHNG (n ° 8849). Type locality: “ La Caroline ” (USA). de Saussure, 1855, 3: 130. Cresson, 1887: 287. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 69 (note on type). Eumenes fraterna var. fervens; Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 25 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22 (cat.).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE5F318FF3095A1D74AF9D7.taxon	biology_ecology	Ecology: Parasite: Chrysis conica Br.; Timulla ferrugata (Fabricius). Ethology: Isely, 1914 (1913), 8 (7): 301 (nest).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE5F318FF3095A1D74AF9D7.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Canada (Northwest Territory *, Ontario); USA (AL *, AR *, CT *, DC *, FA *, GA *, IA *, IL *, IN *, LA *, KS, MA *, MD *, MI *, MN, MO *, MS *, NB, NC *, NH *, NJ *, NY *, OH *, OK, PA *, SC *, TN *, TX, VA *, WI *, WV *). * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE5F318FF3095A1D74AF9D7.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. Eumenes fraternus Say, 1824, is a species with a wide distribution in the eastern half of the USA and is historically recognized mostly by its yellow-creamy marks on the body. The species is often confused with E. crucifera var. nearcticus or E. verticalis var. neoboreus due their similar yellow-creamy marks and geographical overlap, but can be separated from those species by the features discussed below. Males of E. verticalis var. neoboreus and E. fraternus can be clearly separated having F 11 narrow with microscopic erect bristles on the ventral surface in the former species and F 11 broad and lacking microscopic bristles in the latter. Females of E. fraternus have the integument shinier, usually with sparser punctation especially on the dorsal surface of T 2; pubescence on the scape short; and T 1 long and slender, weakly swollen in dorsal view. On the other hand, females of E. verticalis have the integument less shiny with denser punctation on the dorsal surface of T 2, pubescence on the scape longer, and T 1 strongly swollen in dorsal view. Eumenes crucifera var. nearcticus has the clypeus with weaker punctures that do not reach the apical region; T 1 shorter, strongly swollen in dorsal view; and T 2 usually wider than long with the lateral margins strongly concave. Males usually have longer golden pubescence on the head (including scape) and mesosoma, also the basal half of the femur has a band of short pubescence. Eumenes fraternus has the clypeus with evenly distributed coarse punctation, T 1 longer and weakly swollen in dorsal view; and T 2 longer than wide with the lateral margins weakly concave. Males have shorter pale-yellow pubescence, and the basal half of the femur with a band of longer pubescence. Because the type of E. fraterna was destroyed, we examined three (female) syntypes of E. fervens de Saussure, 1852, which we confirm as synonyms of the former species.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE5F318FF3095A1D74AF9D7.taxon	description	Redescription. Eumenes fervens de Saussure, 1852 (Fig. 15) Color, head: Black, except for yellow-creamy as follows: bands on each side of the basal half of clypeus; longitudinal band on inter-antennal region; narrow and short band on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eye. Mesosoma: Black, with yellow-creamy marks as follows: broad band on anterior portion of the dorsal surface of pronotum; almost entire metanotum; rounded marks on each side on the upper half of the posterior face of propodeum. External margin of tegula. Marks on tibiae. Brownish marks on coxae, distal region of femora and tarsi. Metasoma: Black, with yellow-creamy marks as follows: transverse narrow band on apex of T 1; marks on each side laterally onT 2 and a broad transverse band on apex; short band on apex of T 3, not reaching the lateral margins. Narrow band on apex of S 2. Apex of T 4 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 with transverse brownish bands. Wings: Hyaline, with costal, medial and submedial cells darkened. Pterostigma and veins darkened. Pubescence, head: Covered with pale-yellow pubescence. Long pubescence on frons, vertex and occipital region. Clypeus, gena and scape with short pubescence. Mesosoma: Covered with pale-yellow and long (as long as on frons) pubescence. Anterior surface of fore coxae with long (but shorter than on thorax) pubescence. Trochanter and basal half fore femur with erect bristles (Fig. 63). Metasoma: Basal half of T 1 with long (as long as on mesosoma) pubescence, becoming shorter towards apex. T 2 with short (as on basal half of T 1) pubescence. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 with shorter pubescence, at least with longer and erect bristles on apex. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with coarse punctation homogeneously distributed. Frons and vertex with coarse and moderately dense punctures, becoming slightly sparser behind ocelli. Weak and sparser punctures on gena. Mesosoma: covered with coarse and moderately dense punctation (as on frons), except on posterior face of propodeum on which punctures becomes denser, forming carinae between them. Metasoma: Coarse and sparse punctures on T 1, becoming slightly denser towards apex. Dorsal surface of T 2 with coarse and moderately dense punctures, becoming sparser towards lateral margins. Punctures on S 2 coarse and sparsely distributed. Weak punctation mostly on apex of T 3 – T 5 and S 3 – S 5, while T 6 and S 6 there is no evident punctures. Structure, head: Apex of labrum rounded; clypeus slightly wider than long, convex, with the apex concave, forming two rounded projections (Fig. 71). Inter-antennal region longitudinally cariniform, as wide as the antennal socket. Lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other. Occipital carina angled on middle region of gena and close to the compound eye next to the mandibles. Mesosoma: pronotal carina developed dorsally and laterally; pronotal fovea present; mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding to the mesepisternum; posterior projection of the tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum strongly concave on basal half. Upper half of the external surface of fore coxae with a short carina. Metasoma: T 1 long, more than three times longer than wide, weakly swollen in dorsal view, with the apical margins subparallels (Fig. 35). T 2 longer than wide, with the lateral margins weakly concave (Fig. 51); basal angle of T 2 rising up abruptly; lamella on apex of T 2 becoming reduced towards lateral margins. Males: Clypeus narrower than females (Fig. 72). F 11 long, broad basally with the apex pointed and surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 85). Dorsal surface of F 11 with a longitudinal carina. Microscopic erect bristles on ventral surface absent. S 7 flattened apically with moderately long bristles on apex. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 101 a, b. Paramere (fig. 101 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus long (fig. 118), reaching the middle region of gonostyle, with moderately dense short bristles; cuspis with dense erect bristles, longer than on digitus; volsella with long bristles on ventral edge and overspread and shorter bristles; distal lobe truncate without bristles. Variation: The following yellow-creamy marks may vary in size and some specimens present mostly just yellow marks: mark on upper half of mesepisternum, adjacent to the mesepimeron; small marks on each side of T 1; the dorsal band on the apex of T 1; and apex of T 3 with a small mark on the center region. Some specimens present violaceous marks mostly on the metasoma (also observed in specimens of E. verticalis var. neoboreus). The punctation on the dorsal surface of T 2 may vary from coarse to weaker punctures, sometimes sparser. Some specimens might have the posterior face of the propodeum less concave and the apical half of T 1 varying from less to more swollen. Some specimens from central-south USA have ferrugineous marks contiguous with the yellow-creamy marks on the legs and metasoma.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE5F318FF3095A1D74AF9D7.taxon	materials_examined	Type material: The lectotype (designated herein) female of Eumenes fervens (MHNG) is lacking the left mid leg, left antenna and right flagellum (both attached on labels): ‘ Caroline’ ‘ [Red Label] Syn- \ TYPE \ ♀ fervens Sss. ’. Two paralectotype females (MNHN): one is missing the right antenna and right fore leg, and the other is missing the fore and mid left legs, left antenna and right flagellum: ‘ MUSEUM PARIS \ CAROLINE \ COLL. BOSC 1828 ’ ‘ [undetermined information] ’ ‘ Eumenes \ fervens \ type. Sss. ’ ‘ Eumenes \ fraternus \ Say \ H. DE SAUSSURE DET. 1884 ’ ‘ [Red Label] SYNTYPE’; ‘ MUSEUM PARIS \ CAROLINE \ COLL. BOSC 1828 ’ ‘ [undetermined information] ’ ‘ Eumenes \ fervens \ type. Sss. ’ ‘ [Red Label] SYNTYPE’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEBF319FF309709D1E8F8DA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type male British Museum (Natural History), no. 18181. Type locality: “ St Domingo ”. Bequaert, 1928, (10) 2: 162. Giordani Soika, 1941, 2: 223. Eumenes abdominalis var. picta de Saussure, 1875, 254: 107. Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 17; Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 20.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEBF319FF309709D1E8F8DA.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Haiti; Dominican Republic (Pedernales; Santiago).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEBF319FF309709D1E8F8DA.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis: Eumenes pictus Smith, 1857 (Fig. 16) resembles E. cubensis, but is separated from it by the following features: weaker punctation on mesosoma; T 1 longer and slender, without evident punctation, as on T 2. As we did not examine the type specimen, we based the redescription on five females and 4 males present at AMNH and UCD. Color, head: Black, with yellow marks as follows: mandibles; labrum; clypeus (except for brownish marks on basal region); inter-antennal region; a band on inner margin of compound eye, from the base of clypeus to the ocular sinus; a band on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eye. Scape predominantly yellow with brownish marks. Pedicel and the basal and the last flagellomeres brownish. Others blackish. Mesosoma: Black, except for the marks as follows: broad yellow band on anterior portion and a narrow one along the posterior edge of pronotum. Triangular brownish mark on posterior half of it. Wide yellow (with small brownish mark) on upper and basal half of mesepisternum, adjacent to the mesepimeron. Brownish with small yellow marks on each side of mesoscutum; tegula brownish-yellow; parategula yellow. Upper half of scutellum yellow, basal half brownish; metanotum entirely yellow. Wide yellow marks on each side of posterior face of propodeum, with small brownish bands adjacent to it. Coxae and trochanters black; femora with black (basal region), brownish and yellow (apical region) bands, respectively. Tibiae and tarsi yellow. Wings: Hyaline, with pterostigma, costal, medial and submedial cells yellow. Veins also yellow but becoming dark towards apex.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEBF319FF309709D1E8F8DA.taxon	description	Pubescence, head: Frons and vertex with moderately long golden pubescence. Gena and clypeus with short golden pubescence. Scape with very short golden pubescence. Mesosoma: Dorsal surface of pronotum, scutellum and metanotum with short golden pubescence. Posterior face of propodeum with slightly longer whitish pubescence. Lateral surface of mesosoma with short and whitish pubescence. Basal half of fore femur with scattered golden and moderately long bristles. Metasoma: Covered with very short (as on mesosoma) golden pubescence, except for some erect bristles on ventral face of T 1 and apex of subsequent segments. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with reduced punctation, hard to observe due the yellow color. Frons with evident punctation, moderately dense, becoming reduced towards vertex. Gena without evident punctation. Mesosoma: Covered with weak but evident and moderately dense punctation, except for anterior and posterior surface of mesepisternum, which is reduced. Metasoma: T 1 and T 2 with reduced puncation. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 without evident punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide. Apex concave, forming two rounded projections with weak carinae on apex of each one. Inter-antennal region slightly wider than the antennal socket, longitudinally cariniform; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other; occipital carina well developed, angled on middle region of gena and distant to the compound eye near the mandible. Mesosoma: Pronotal carina present dorsally and laterally; pronotal fovea present; humeral region with pointed projection, as in genus Zeta; posterior projection of tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; lateral carina on upper half of the external face of fore coxae short and weak; concavity on posterior face of propodeum weakly developed. Metasoma: T 1 slender, more than four times longer than wide (Fig. 36), weakly swollen in dorsal view; T 2 longer than wide (Fig. 52), with the lateral margins moderately concave. Basal angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up about 45 ° regarding S 2 axis. Apex of T 2 with an apical lamella which becomes reduced towards apex. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 short, basally broad and apically pointed, surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 86). Dorsal surface without the longitudinal carina. Ventral surface with microscopic erect bristles. S 7 flattened apically. Punctation on T 1 and T 2 more evident than on females. Pubescence as on females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 102 a, b. Like in E. cubensis, the lateral projections from the apex are distant from each other. Apical projection pointed (Fig. 102 b). Paramere (Fig. 102 c) with long bristles on middle area of gonostyle; digitus very modified, without the narrow apical projection (fig. 119), different of E. cubensis, E. americanus, E. smithii and E. belfragei, with scattered short bristles. Cuspis with erect bristles longer than on digitus. Volsella with scattered short bristles, as long as on digitus. Distal lobe strongly projecting, rounded on apex, with some erect bristles on basal region of it.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEAF31BFF309602D239FE2A.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype male at CAS (n ° 6143). Type locality: “ Charleston Mts., C 1 ark Co., Nevada, 7500 feet ”. Bohart, 1951: 885 (cat). Krombein, 1979: 1508 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618, 619 (key).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEAF31BFF309602D239FE2A.taxon	distribution	Distribution: U. S. A. (CA, NV, UT).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEAF31BFF309602D239FE2A.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis: Eumenes sculleni Bohart, 1950, can be identified by the shiny integument, especially on the metasoma; the long golden pubescence along the body; the weak and very sparse punctation on the metasoma; the globose T 2, with its lateral angle strongly concave and rising up abruptly. Redescription. Holotype Eumenes sculleni Bohart, 1950 (Fig. 17)	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEAF31BFF309602D239FE2A.taxon	description	Male. Color, head: Black with yellow marks as follows: mandibles; labrum; clypeus; inter-antennal region; broad longitudinal band on scape; narrow and short band on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eye. Mesosoma: Black, with yellow marks as follows: broad band on anterior portion of pronotum and a small mark on posterior area, right next to the tegula; small marks on each side of anterior half of mesoscutum; tegula (except for a black mark on central area); parategula; wide mark on upper half of mesepisternum, adjacent to the mesepimeron, and a small mark on basal half; spots on each side of scutellum; almost entirely metanotum; broad band along the lateral portion of the posterior face of propodeum. Wide marks on coxae and femora; entirely tibiae and tarsi, although the distal tarsi are dark brownish. Metasoma: Black with yellow marks as follows: wide mark on each side of middle area of T 1; narrow and transverse band on apex of T 1; broad band on each side of middle area of T 2, contiguous laterally with a broad band on apex. Broad band on apex of T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6. T 7 and S 7 entirely black. Wings: Hyaline, with costal, medial and submedial cells yellowish. Pterostigma and veins dark brownish. Pubescence: In lateral or oblique view, the pubescence that is under yellow marks along the integument might give the impression of being whitish, but all the pubescence along the body shows the same color pattern. Head: Very long yellowish pubescence mainly on frons and occipital region. Pubescence on scape long but shorter than on frons. Pubescence on base and lateral margins of clypeus as long as on frons, while on the apex it becomes shorter. Mesosoma: Long (as long as on frons) and yellowish pubescence homogeneously distributed. Long (shorter than the rest of mesosoma) on anterior face of coxae. Erect bristles all over the internal face of fore femur. Metasoma: T 1 with yellowish and long (as long as mesosoma). Base of T 2 with yellowish and long (shorter than on T 1) pubescence that becomes slightly shorter towards apex. T 3 – T 7 and S 2 – S 7 with short and yellowish pubescence. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with coarse punctation homogeneously distributed; frons and vertex with coarse and moderately dense punctation, slightly sparser behind the ocelli. Mesosoma: Coarse and moderately dense (as on frons) covering all mesosoma. Metasoma: T 1 with reduced punctation, at least with some punctures more evident on apical half; T 2 with reduced punctation on basal half, becoming more evident and denser towards apex; S 2 with evident punctation scattered mainly on lateral margins; T 3 – T 7 and S 3 – S 7 without evident punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide, with the apex concave forming two projections with well developed carinae on apex of each one. Inter-antennal region longitudinally cariniform, narrow than the antennal socket. Lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other. Occipital carina not angled on middle of gena and very close to the compound eyes next the mandibles. F 11 long, with the apex pointed, surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 87). Dorsal surface without longitudinal carina. Microscopic erect bristles on ventral surface of it. Mesosoma: Pronotal carina on dorsal face of pronotum weakly developed, while on lateral face it is more developed. Pronotal fovea present. Mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding the mesepisternum level. Posterior projection of tegula weakly developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum strongly concave. Metasoma: T 1 about 2.5 times longer than wide, strongly swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 37); T 2 longer than wide, laterally globose (Fig. 53). Basal angle of T 2 rising up abruptly, concave (Fig. 60). Apex of T 2 with an apical lamella that becomes reduced towards lateral margins. S 7 flattened apically. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 103 a, b. Paramere (Fig. 103 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus broad and short, nor surpassing the distal lobe (fig. 120) with scattered short bristles; cuspis with erect bristles, longer than on digitus; volsella with scattered short bristles and long ones on ventral margin; distal lobe rounded, without bristles. Female: Besides the usual color, pubescence, and punctation as in males. Clypeus broader than males, but still longer than wide. Variation: Clypeus may have black marks on center area; yellow marks may be more developed; yellow marks on scutellum contiguous; yellow bands on middle area of T 2 may be contiguous dorsally. Punctation on T 1 and on basal half of T 2 may be more evident; punctation on frons and posterior face of propodeum may be denser. Concavity on posterior face of propodeum usually weaker on females.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEAF31BFF309602D239FE2A.taxon	materials_examined	Type material: The holotype male (CAS) of Eumenes verticalis Bohart, 1950 is in excellent condition and bears the labels: ‘ Charlerston Mts. \ Kyle Canyon \ Clark Co., Nev. ’ ‘ About 7500 ft. \ July 25, 1942 \ H. A. Sculen, Col. ’ ‘ [Red Label] Eumenes \ verticalis \ sculleni \ R. Bohart’ ‘ California Academy \ of Sciences \ Type No. 6143 ’. Four paratypes, one female and three males (UCD) are in good condition and bears the labels: [female] ‘ Charlerston Mts. \ Kyle Canyon \ Clark Co., Nev. \ About 7800 ft \ July 25, 1942 \ H. A. Scullen, Col. ’ ‘ Eumenes \ verticalis \ sculleni \ R. Bohart’; ‘ Charleston Mt. Park \ Nev. 9000 ft. VI- 21 - 40 ’; two males bear the same label as holotype.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE8F31DFF309312D035FDC7.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Syntypes at NHM and MNHN. Type locality: “ La presqu’île de Florida ” (USA). de Saussure, 1875, 254: 104. Cresson, 1887: 287 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 32 (cat.); Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 25 (cat.). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 70 (note on types). Bequaert, 1944, 71: 79. MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 617, 619 (key). Buck et al. 2008, 5: 44 (key), 154. Eumenes belfragei Cresson, 1872, 4: 232. Type data: Lectotype female and two paratypes male at ANSP (examined). Type locality: “ Texas ” (Lectotype and paralectotypes). Cresson, 1887: 287 (cat). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 19 (belfragii [!]; cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 21 (belfragi [!]; cat). Cresson, 1916, 1: 103 (designation of lectotype). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 68 (note on type). Bohart & Menke, 1974, 47: 459, 461. Krombein, 1979: 1508. Eumenes smithii smithii; Bohart, 1951: 885 (cat.). Krombein, 1958: 163. Krombein, 1979: 1508 (cat.). Ahlstrom, 1995, 1: 102 (list). Eumenes smithii belfragei; Bohart, 1951: 885 (cat.). Krombein, 1958: 163: 1508. Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 29. Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE8F31DFF309312D035FDC7.taxon	biology_ecology	Ecology: Prey: Geometridae larvae. Ethology: Hartman, 1913, 3: 353 – 360 (nest building, prey, life history). Isely, 1917, 10: 350 (nest).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE8F31DFF309312D035FDC7.taxon	distribution	Distribution: U. S. A. (AL, FL, GA, KS, MS, NC, OK, TN, TX).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE8F31DFF309312D035FDC7.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. We did not examine the type specimens of Eumenes smithii but some specimens (females and males) were compared to the original description and later redescriptions (de Saussure, 1852, 1875; Bequaert, 1944); these were used to produce the diagnosis of the species (Fig. 18). Eumenes smithii has its distribution in the central-east of the USA and presents darker background coloration (mainly of the scutellum and metasoma) than E. americanus. The clypeus is always black with coarse punctation, evenly distributed, up to the apex (Fig. 67). T 1 has coarse punctation from the pre-basal region, becoming denser near the apex (Fig. 38). The punctation is not as deep and dense on the dorsal surface of T 2 (Fig. 54). The apex of aedeagus has a rounded protuberance (in lateral view) (Fig. 104 a) and the apical ventral projection varies from truncate to weakly concave, (Fig 109 a, b); the ventral lobe is weakly rounded (Fig. 104 a); and the digitus has short, but more evident bristles than E. americanus (Fig. 121). We examined specimens originally identified as E. smithii and E. belfragei and there were no evident morphological differences to separate both taxa, but a range of variation can be observed for the species: most specimens from the central USA (Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas) have the yellow marks more developed, mostly on T 2, the apical projection of the aedeagus strongly concave, and the bristles of the digitus more evident. Specimens from the southeastern USA (records from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississipi and North Carolina), however, showed no yellow marks on T 2, although those on the mesosoma are present as in the central region. The apical projections of the aedeagus of this population were scarecely concave or truncate (Fig. 109 a, b) and the bristles of the digitus were less evident. Males examined from Tennessee and Mississipi showed intermediate features in a less truncate apical projection and bristles of the digitus, and besides that, specimens from both regions showed no consistent pattern of the yellow marks, including the type specimen of E. belfragei which is from Texas but has no yellow marks on metasoma, as in the typical E. smithii. This evidence leads us to believe that both taxa are indeed synonyms with intra-specific variation across the range of distribution of the species.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE8F31DFF309312D035FDC7.taxon	description	Color, head: Black, with yellow marks as follows: mandibles and labrum. Brownish (sometimes with yellowish marks) as follows: around the edges of the clypeus; inter-antennal region; a band on inner margin of compound eyes, which goes from the base of the clypeus to the ocular sinus; a narrow band on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eye; antenna, with some distal flagellomeres with blackish marks. Mesosoma: Black, with brownish and yellowish marks as follows: entirely pronotum, tegula and parategula (also with yellow marks); triangular marks on each side of mesosucutum; scutellum (with a narrow yellow band on apex); metanotum (with a yellow band); broad mark on upper half of mesepisternum, adjacent to the mesepimeron; all lateral region of the posterior face of propodeum. Marks on coxae; almost entirely femora and entirely tibiae and tarsi, although the distal tarsi are darker. Metasoma: T 1 and S 2 black on basal half and brownish on apical half; T 2 with black marks on basal region and a transverse black band on middle area. Other regions are covered with brownish marks. T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 brownish with some yellow marks. Pubescence, head: frons, vertex and occipital region with moderately long and golden pubescence. Clypeus and gena with shorter pubescence, whitish, better observed in oblique view. Some longer and erect bristles scattered on clypeus. Mesosoma: Mesoscutum, scutellum and metanotum with moderately long golden pubescence. Lateral surface of mesosoma whitish pubescence (better observed in oblique view) as long as on mesoscutum. Posterior face of propodeum with long (longer than frons and mesoscutum) and whitish pubescence. Apical half and basal half of fore coxa and femur, respectively, and trochanter with erect golden bristles. Metasoma: Dorsal surface of T 1 and T 2 with short golden pubescence. Ventral surface of T 1 with scattered moderately long golden pubescence. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 with short golden pubescence, except long bristles on apex. Surface of integument: Clypeus with coarse punctation homogeneously distributed. Frons and vertex with coarse and dense punctation, which becomes very sparse behind the ocelli. Gena with reduced punctation. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and dense punctation, except on anterior and posterior portion of mesepisternum, where the punctation is sparser (almost absent on anterior portion). Compared to E. americanus, the punctation from mesoscutum, scutellum, metanotum and posterior face of propodeum are coarser, forming carinae between the punctures. Metasoma: T 1 with coarse and dense punctation from the base; dorsal face of T 2 covered with slightly coarse (less than T 1 and mesosoma), dense, becoming weaker towards apex and lateral margins. S 2 with evident punctation mostly on lateral margins. T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 with reduced punctation Structure: Clypeus convex, with the apex concave, producing two rounded apical projections with weak carinae on the apex of each one (Fig. 67). Inter-antennal region slightly wider than the antennal socket, longitudinally cariniform. Lateral ocelli closer to the compound eyes than to each other. Occipital carina well developed and angled on middle region of gena, not so close to the compound eye near mandibles. Mesosoma: Pronotal fovea present; pronotal carina weakly developed on dorsal face of pronotum and more developed on lateral face of it. Mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding the mesepisternum. Posterior projection of tegula weak developed, rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum strongly concave on basal half. Basal half of the external surface of fore coxae with a well developed carina. Metasoma: T 1 long, about 2.5 times longer than wide, moderately swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 38). Lateral margins on the apical half subparallel. T 2 longer than wide, with an apical lamella that becomes reduced towards lateral margins (Fig. 54). Angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up abruptly. Males: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 short with the apex pointed, surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 88). Dorsal surface without longitudinal carina. Ventral surface without microscopic erect bristles. S 7 flattened apically, with bristles scattered on apex (also on T 7). Color, pubescence and punctation as on females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in Fig. 104 a, b. Apical projection varying from truncate to strongly concave (Fig. 103 a, b). Paramere (Fig. 104 c) with long bristles on middle area of gonostyle; digitus strongly slender on apex, with short and evident bristles (Fig. 121); cuspis with thin, long and very dense pubescence; volsella with short (shorter than on cuspis) but evident scattered bristles; distal lobe truncate with a few erect bristles on the edge. Variation: As discussed above, specimens from the central USA (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) usually have more developed yellow marks on the mesosoma. Besides that, the apical projection of the aedeagus is usually more concave (Fig. 103 b) and the bristles of the digitus are more evident.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFE8F31DFF309312D035FDC7.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. Lectotype female of Eumenes belfragei is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Tex’ ‘ [Red Label] TYPE No. \ 20671 ’ ‘ Eumenes \ belfragei \ Cres. ’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEEF31EFF309339D7F2F8BA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type destroyed. Type locality: “ Pennsylvania ” de Saussure, 1852, 1: 41. Cresson, 1887: 287 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 33 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 25 (cat.). Bequaert, 1928, 101: 1004. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 61 (key), 64, 70 (type lost). Bequaert & Taylor, 1942, 42: 68 (list). Bequaert, 1944, 71: 78 (key), 86. MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618, 620 (key). Buck et al. 2008, 5: 44 (key), 155. Eumenes coloradensis Cresson, 1875, 5: 717. REVISED STATUS. Type data: Lectotype female at ANSP (examined). Type locality: Colorado (USA). Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 21 (cat.). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 21 (cat.). Tucker, 1909, 22: 286. Cresson, 1916, 1: 104 (designation of Lectotype). Isely, 1917, 10: 348 (key), 359. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 65, 69 (note on types). Bequaert, 1944, 71: 78 (key), 81. Eumenes (Alpha) cruciferorum Viereck, 1908, 33: 388. REVISED STATUS. Type data: Lectotype female (by present designation) and Paralectotype male at KUNHM (examined). Type locality: “ Thomas’ Ranch, Oak Creek Canon, 6000 ft., 20 miles southwest of Flagstaff, Coconino Co., Arizona ” (USA). Eumenes cruciferorum; Bequaert, 1938, 33: 69 (note on types). Bohart, 1951: 885. Eumenes (Alpha) enigmatus Viereck, 1908, 33: 389. NEW STATUS. Type data: Lectotype male (by present designation) and Paralectotype male at KUNHM (examined). Type locality: “ Thomas’ Ranch, Oak Creek Canon, 6000 ft., 20 miles southwest of Flagstaff, Coconino Co., Arizona ”. Eumenes enigmatus; Bequaert, 1938, 33: 69 (enigmaticus [!]; note on type). Bohart, 1951: 885.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEEF31EFF309339D7F2F8BA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at USNM (n ° 21379) (examined). Type locality: “ White Mts, Novo Mexico; Rio Ruidoso; about 6500 ft. ” (USA). Bequaert, 1938, 33: 70 (note on types). Bohart, 1951: 885.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEEF31EFF309339D7F2F8BA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at USNM (n ° 21383) (examined). Type locality: “ Oregon ”. Bequaert, 1938, 33: 70 (note on type).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEEF31EFF309339D7F2F8BA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype male at MCZ (n ° 33185) (examined). Three paratypes male at ROM (examined). Type locality: “ Canada ... Quebec: La Trappe ” (Holotype); “ Canada: Ontario (paratypes). Eumenes verticalis tricinctus; (4) 24 (9): 315. Bohart, 1951: 885 (cat.) Krombein, 1979: 1508 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618. Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 87 (list). Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list). Eumenes verticalis verticalis; Bohart, 1951: 885 (cat.). Krombein, 1979: 1508 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618. Ahlstrom, 1995, 1: 102 (list). Eumenes verticalis neoboreus; Bohart, 1951: 885 (cat.). Krombein, 1979: 1508 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618. Eumenes verticalis coloradensis; Bohart, 1951: 885. Krombein, 1958: 163; Krombein, 1979: 1508 (cat.). MacLachlan, 1980, 53: 618. Ruiz C. et al., 1993, 88: 83, 87 (list). Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEEF31EFF309339D7F2F8BA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Holotype female at MSNV (examined). Type locality: “ Messico: Nogares, dintorni di Orizaba, 1540 m. ” (Mexico). Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEEF31EFF309339D7F2F8BA.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Canada (Alta, B. C., Queb, Man *, Ont., Sask *); Mexico (Lower California *, Nuevo León *, Tamaulipas *, Veracruz); U. S. A. (AZ, CA, CT, CO, DC *, DE *, ID, IL, IN *, MA, MD *, MN *, MO, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV *, NY, OH *, OR, PA *, SD *, UT, VA *, WI *, WV *, WY). * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEEF31EFF309339D7F2F8BA.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. Eumenes verticalis was originally described by Say (1824), from Pennsylvania (USA) (the type was destroyed), and currently it has four recognized subspecies: E. verticalis coloradensis Cresson, 1875; E. verticalis tricinctus Isely, 1917, E. verticalis neoboreus Bequaert, 1944, and E. verticalis verticalis (Say), 1824. We had examined all the type specimens from all the subspecies of E. verticalis plus 137 specimens (57 females and 80 males, all with male genitalia extracted and examined) and as we stated for E. consobrinus, E. verticalis has some intraspecific variation along its distribution, mainly in color and punctation of T 2 throughout the east coast of the USA and southeast Canada, which leads us to propose the abandonment of these subspecies. Because the primary type of the species was destroyed, we compared specimens of the typical E. verticalis with the original description of Say (1824) and we selected one of these for the redescription of the species. This specimen is established as the lectotype. Giordani Soika (1978) described E. cruciferoides (Fig. 12) and noted that it resembles E. crucifera bolliformis but also noted that they differ in the “ punctation of the clypeus, punctation and color (p. 29) ”. We compared the type of E. cruciferoides and to the type of E. bolliformis and, although the former is known only from the type, we maintain it as a different species based on the following features: the punctures on clypeus are coarser and extend to the apical region; the punctation on the mesepisternum is denser, with the interspaces forming carinae, particularly in the center-basal region; the pubescence on the head and mesosoma is slightly longer, most evident on the frons and scape. Although E. cruciferoides is known only from the type specimen, we compared it with the typical E. verticalis and no morphological differences were found besides having the ferrugineous marks contiguous with the yellow marks along body. As we observed for E. fraternus and E. crucifera var. bolliformis, specimens found the the southern USA and / or Mexico present ferrugineous marks along the body. As with E. verticalis, E. cruciferoides also has the clypeus with coarse punctation and long pubescence along the body, including on the scape (longer than the pedicel). For these reasons, we treat E. cruciferoides as a new synonym of E. verticalis.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEDF321FF3096C3D788FCE7.taxon	description	Female. Color, head: Black, with yellow marks as follows: wide spot on basal half of clypeus; inter-antennal region and a narrow stripe on basal half of scape and on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eyes. Brownish marks: on the two-third apical region of the mandibles; labrum; apex of the clypeus (on the apical projections) and marks on flagellum, mainly the first three and last two flagellomeres. Mesosoma: Black with yellow marks as follows: a broad band on the anterior region on the dorsal face of the pronotum; small spot on upper half of mesepisternum, adjacent to the mesepimeron; tegula (with a brownish translucent mark on the center region of it); apical two-third of metanotum; small spot on the side of the upper half of the posterior face of propodeum and one wide mark on the basal half of it. Marks on the apical region of femora; almost entirely tibiae; first two tarsi yellow-brownish and the last three dark brownish. Metasoma: predominantly black, with yellow marks as follows: two small spots on each side of the middle region of T 1; a transverse band on apex of T 1; a relatively broad band on each side of T 2 and transverse band on apex of T 2 – T 4 and S 2 – S 5 (narrower on those sclerites and almost absent on S 5). Wings hyaline, with the costal, medial and submedial cells darkened yellow. Veins and pterostigma dark brownish. Pubescence: Golden pubescence covering the body. Head: long pubescence on frons, vertex and occipital region. Basal and lateral regions of clypeus with slightly shorter pubescence, while on center and apical regions it is very short. In oblique view, the pubescence on clypeus generally appears to be whitish. Pubescence on scape moderately long (shorter than on frons). Mesosoma: covered with long pubescence (as long as on frons and vertex). Metasoma: T 1 with moderately long pubescence (shorter than on mesosoma); basal region of T 2 with pubescence as long as on T 1 and becoming shorter towards apex. The other sclerites have very short pubescence with some slightly long on apex. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with coarse punctation homogenously distributed. Frons and vertex with coarse punctation, denser than on clypeus. Behind the lateral ocelli the punctation becomes sparser. Gena with weak punctation and very sparse distributed. Mesosoma: Coarse and dense (as on frons) punctation, except on the upper half of mesepisternum which are slightly sparser and on anterior half of the lateral face of the propodeum which is reduced. Metasoma: absent on the basal third of T 1 and coarse on the two-third of the apical region, sparser than on mesosoma, but becoming denser on apex region. T 2 with coarse and dense punctation, denser on apex. On lateral margins of T 2 the punctation becomes sparser than on dorsal face. S 2 with coarse and sparse punctation mainly on lateral margins. T 3 – T 5 and S 3 – S 5 with weak and very sparse punctation. T 6 and S 6 with no evident punctation. Structure, head: Center of clypeus strongly convex; apical region of the clypeus concave, forming two apical and rounded projections with very weak carinae on apex (Fig. 70). Inter-antennal region longitudinally cariniform, slightly wider than the antennal socket; lateral ocelli closer to each other than to the compound eyes; occipital carina very close to the compound eye next to the mandibles and weakly angled on middle region of gena. Mesosoma: carina on dorsal face of pronotum weakly developed, while on lateral face it is more developed. Pronotal fovea present; mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding to the mesepisternum level; tegula with posterior projection weakly developed, rounded; posterior face of strongly concave on basal half; carina on upper half of external side of fore coxa. Metasoma: T 1 not more than 2.5 times longer than wide; moderately swollen in dorsal view (Fig. 38), with the lateral margins on apical half concave and lateral margins on apex divergent. T 2, in dorsal view, longer than wide, with the lateral margins weakly concave (Fig. 54). Apex of T 2 with lamella which becomes reduced until completely disappear. Basal angle of T 2, in lateral view, rising up abruptly. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 long, narrow basally, with the apex pointed and surpassing the apical margin of F 8 (Fig. 89). Dorsal surface without longitudinal carina. Microscopic erect bristles on ventral surface of F 11. S 7 flattened apically, with some bristles scattered on the apex. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 105 a, b. Paramere (Fig. 105 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus broad, not reaching the middle region of the gonostyle, covered with short bristles (Fig. 122); volsella with long bristles on ventral margin and short scattered bristles; cuspis with moderately long bristles (longer than on digitus); distal lobe truncate, without evident bristles. Variation: The specimens from Canada to the central west of the USA have the yellow marks less developed than those from the central east. Color variation is as follows: apex of clypeus with spots on each side or almost entirely yellow, with just a longitudinal black band on the apex; marks on mesepisternum, upper half of posterior face of propodeum and T 1 may be reduced or even absent; small spot on each side of scutellum (one specimen presented a spot only in one side of the scutellum); marks on lateral margins of T 1 may be reduced; brownish marks on the flagellum may be absent. The integument may be violaceous mixed with blackish, better observed on laterally on the mesosoma and metasoma. Some specimens have the pubescence of clypeus whitish in oblique view. The posterior face of the propodeum may have the concavity weaker; and the punctation of T 2 may be slightly weaker and sparser. We examined all the type series of E. coloradensis Cresson, 1875 (Fig. 21); E. cruciferorum Viereck, 1908 (lectotype female and paralectotype male by present designation); E. enigmaticus Viereck, 1908 (lectotype and paralectotype male by present designation); E. stenogaster Isely, 1917; and most of the specimens of E. verticalis coloradensis. All of them presented the same features described for E. verticalis, showing only the yellow marks frequently more developed as follows: clypeus often yellow with a black mark that goes from the base to the middle area and sometime on the lateral margins (or only with the black on center region of it); mark on the scape longer; spots on each side of the scutellum, which vary in size (and sometimes absent); the spots on the sides of the posterior face of the propodeum may be wider and often contiguous (in some species totally absent); the band on the lateral margins of T 2 broader and sometimes contiguous laterally with the apical band, which it is also clearly broader, as long as the apical band on the T 3 – T 5 and S 2 – S 6. Although the differences relating to the yellow marks, the pubescence, punctation, and external morphology (and male genitalia) were the same as typical verticalis, all included in the range of variation listed. One specimen from Montana showed the punctation of the basal half of T 2 sparser, as seen in E. verticalis from Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. Bequaert (1944) described E. verticalis var. neoboreus (Fig. 22) and stated that this variety has the same markings as E. verticalis, but with “ white to creamy-white instead of yellow ” and “ the more northern form of the species and is known only from the Dominion of Canada … In the western provinces, it occurs in some localities together with the typical form and there are also a transitional species ” (pag. 87). We examined just one male in addition to the type specimens (for which we did not have authorization to extract the genitalia), and we did not find evident differences in pubescence and morphological structure, including the morphology of the male genitalia. One difference that we did find was a male with the punctation of T 2 weaker and sparser than that on the type species, a pattern commonly seen in the East coast of the USA (see below), although this species is recorded from Wyoming state (species of E. consobrinus also presented this pattern on the same region). The morphology of the male genitalia was similar to other genitalia examined (see male genitalia section), which supported placing E. verticalis neoboreus as a synonym of E. verticalis with a color variation possibly due the longitudinal differences between populations. We decided to maintain the term neoboreus to facilitate the recognition of the variation, as we proposed for the other variants below. Among all paratypes of E. verticalis neoboreus deposited in the ROM, one specimen (male) was actually E. fraternus. As we observed for E. consobrinus, the West coast of the USA has populations with different punctation and color than the typical eastern forms. We observed the same in the material examined of E. verticalis tricinctus Isely, 1917 (Fig. 23), including the following yellow marks: wider marks on mesepisternum, including on the basal half; marks on scutellum wider, often contiguous, occupying the anterior half; marks on the lateral margins of the posterior face of the propodeum more developed, marks on the middle area of T 1 more developed, often contiguous laterally with an apical band; lateral and apical bands of T 2 more developed, occupying almost the entire sclerite, except for black marks on the basal half (and sometimes also laterally) and a transverse band on the middle area (sometimes the transverse band is contiguous with the basal mark). This pattern of marks was observed mostly in females, while the males generally had the same pattern that we described for the typical species and / or coloradensis variants and the genitalia were not different from the variants of E. verticalis. All the specimens of verticalis variety presented the punctation of T 2 clearly sparser than the typical form, mainly on the basal half. The types of E. verticalis tricinctus also presented the mesosomal punctation slightly weak, but most specimens matched the typical form.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFEDF321FF3096C3D788FCE7.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The holotype male of Eumenes verticalis var. neoboreus Bequaert, 1944 is excellent condition and bears the labels: ‘ 8 La Treppe \ VII 42 Qué. \ J. Ouellet’ ‘ [Red Label] M. C. Z. \ holotype \ neoboreus \ ♂ ’ ‘ Eumenes \ verticalis \ var. \ neoboreus \ J. Beq’ ‘ [Red Label] M. C. Z. \ Holotype \ 33185 ’. The four males paratypes deposited at ROM are in good condition and bear the labels: ‘ Wm. Brodie \ Collection’ ‘ PARATYPE \ Eumenes verticalis \ neoboreus Bequaert \ Det. Bequaert 1944 \ ROMEnt Spec. No. 81631 \ ROM 003001683 ’; ‘ Toronto, Ont. \ 19.7.94 ’ ‘ Wm. Brodie \ Collection’ ‘ [red square label] ’ ‘ PARATYPE \ Eumenes verticalis \ neoboreus Bequaert \ Det. Bequaert 1944 \ ROMEnt Spec. No. 81633 \ ROM 004000144 ’; ‘ Toronto, Ont. \ 23.1.91 ’ ‘ Wm. Brodie \ Collection’ ‘ [red square label] ’ ‘ PARATYPE \ Eumenes verticalis \ neoboreus Bequaert \ Det. Bequaert 1944 \ ROMEnt Spec. No. 81634 \ ROM 004000145 ’; ‘ Toronto, Ont. \ 2.7.94 ’ ‘ Wm. Brodie \ Collection’ ‘ [red square label] ’ ‘ PARATYPE \ Eumenes verticalis \ neoboreus Bequaert \ Det. Bequaert 1944 \ ROMEnt Spec. No. 81632 \ ROM 004000143 ’ [this specimen is actually E. fraternus]. The holotype female of Eumenes coloradensis Cresson, 1875 is in good condition but it is lacking the F 3 – F 10 of the right antenna and bears the labels: ‘ Col. ’ ‘ [Red Label] LectoTYPE \ 2728 ’ ‘ Eumenes \ coloradensis \ Cress. ’. The Lectotype female of Eumenes cruciferorum Viereck, 1908 is lacking the fore and mid right legs, and the last two tarsi of the left fore leg. It bears the labels: ‘ Oak Creek Canon \ Ariz. 6000 ft. Aug \ F. H. Snow’ ‘ 1708 a’ ‘ [Red Label] Eumenes \ cruciferorum \ Type Vier. ’. The paralectotype male of Eumenes cruciferorum Viereck, 1908 is in bad condition, lacking: left antenna; left fore and hind legs (except for the coxa); left mid leg from tibia and beyond; right leg; right mid and hind legs from tibia and beyond; metasoma broken but still pinned with the specimen. Bears the labels: ‘ Oak Creek Canon \ Ariz. 6000 ft. Aug \ F. H. Snow’ ‘ 1708 b’ ‘ [Red Label] Eumenes \ cruciferorum \ Type Vier. ’. The lectotype male of Eumenes enigmaticus Viereck, 1908 is in good condition, except for the lacking of the third tarsus and beyond of the hind righ leg. Bears the labels: ‘ Oak Creek Canon \ Ariz. 6000 ft. Aug \ F. H. Snow’ ‘ 1708 c’ ‘ [Red Label] Eumenes \ enigmaticus \ Paratype Vier. ’. The paralectotype male of Eumenes enigmaticus Viereck, 1908 is in excellent condition and bears the same labels as the lectotype, except for one: ‘ 1708 ’ instead of ‘ 1708 c’. The holotype of Eumenes stenogaster Isely, 1917 is in excellent condition and bears the labels: ‘ Coll. \ Townsend’ ‘ White Mts \ 8 - 1 NM’ ‘ Rio Ruidoso \ Abt 6500 ft. ’ ‘ On fls Monarda \ stricta ’ ‘ [Red Label] Type \ No. 21379 \ U. S. N. M. ’ ‘ E. \ stenogaster \ Isely’. The holotype female of Eumenes tricinctus is in good condition and bear the labels: ‘ Oreg \ 2511 ’ ‘ Collection \ CFBaker’ ‘ [Red Label] Type \ No. 21383 \ U. S. N. M. ’ ‘ E. \ tricinctus \ Isely’. The holotype female of Eumenes cruciferoides is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Nogares \ (Orizaba) \ 1540 m. 1. IX. 75 \ Giordani Soika’ ‘ [Red Label] HOLOTYPE \ Eumenes \ cruciferoides Sss. ’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F321FF30922BD013FBE8.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Eumenes filiformis de Saussure, 1855, by original designation. Literature: Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 16, 17, 37 – 45 (rev.). Carpenter and van der Vecht, 1991, 60: 231 – 232 (species status).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F323FF30952FD7E9FE57.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Lecto type at MRSN. Type locality: “ Le Bresil ”. Smith, 1857, 5: 30 (cat.). de Saussure, 1875, 254: 109. Dalla Torre, 1894, 9: 24 (cat.). Fox, 1899, 1899: 457. Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 22 (cat.). Bertoni, 1912, 22: 106, 108. Zavattari, 1912, 78 A (4): 129. Giordani Soika, 1961, 1: 241; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 43 (designation of Lectotype). Carpenter & van der Vecht, 1991, 60: 211, 231 (distinct species). West-Eberhard et al., 1995: 573. Rasmussen & Asenjo, 2009, 15: 38 (list). Zeteumenes filicornis [!]; Bertoni, 1921, 1: 11	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F323FF30952FD7E9FE57.taxon	description	Zeteumenes (Beteumenes) filicornis; Bertoni, 1934, 3: 111, 115. Bertoni, 1934, Rev. Soc. Cient. Parag. 3: 111, 115. Zetamenes [!] filiformis var. costarricensis Bertoni, 1925, 2: 75.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F323FF30952FD7E9FE57.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type male at IBNPY. Type locality: “ Costa Rica ”. Zeteumenoides filiformis; Giordani Soika, 1972, 104: 110.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F323FF30952FD7E9FE57.taxon	description	Eumenes (Zeteumenoides) versicolor filiformis; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 43.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F323FF30952FD7E9FE57.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Brazil (AM, AP *, PA *, RO); Bolivia * (Coroico); Colombia (Amazonas *, Arauca *, Boyaca *, Meta, Putumayo *, Vaupés *); Costa Rica * (San José); French Guyana (St. Laurent du Maroni); Panama * (Chiriqui); Paraguay *; Peru (Chamchamayo, Loreto *, Ucayali *); Suriname *. * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F323FF30952FD7E9FE57.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. Giordani Soika (1978) treated filiformis and rufomaculatus as subspecies of E. versicolor that differed basically by coloration. Even though he illustrated some differences in the digitus (p. 40 and figs 35, 37, 39), he judged them as not appreciable. Later, Carpenter & Vecth (1991) studied the specimenss from CMNH and proposed to treat them as different species based on morphological characters. We confirm this treatment herein and sustain E. filiformis, E. rufomaculatus and E. versicolor as separate species. Eumenes filiformis has the clypeus somewhat narrow (fig. 74), with the punctation coarse and evident on the basal half and reduced on the apical half, while E. rufomaculatus and E. versicolor have the clypeus broader, with punctation uniformly distributed (fig. 75, 76). Besides that, the humeral region is less projecting, best observed in oblique view. We examined the male genitalia from the three species and found appreciable characters that confirm them as separate taxa: the aedeagus of each taxon is similar, but the ventral margin in E. filiformis is less projecting than E. rufomaculatus. The digitus of E. filiformis and E. versicolor are flattened, but the dorsal margin in E. filiformis is angled with evident and longer bristles, mostly on the ventral margin (Fig. 123), while in the other two species it is rounded with slightly shorter and less evident bristles (fig. 124, 125). The digitus of E. rufomaculatus is broad laterally, with the dorsal margin angled and with less evident bristles compared to E. filiformis. Besides the features described above, E. filiformis may be identified by having the body predominantly black (Fig. 24), including the pterostigma, costal, medial, and submedial cells of the fore wings; T 1 very long and narrow; and the apical region from the ventral surface of T 1 ventrally projecting (fig. 61). We did not examine the type specimen of E. filiformis but we based the redescription on 8 specimens (7 females and 1 female).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD2F323FF30952FD7E9FE57.taxon	description	Female (Fig. 24). Color, head: Black, with yellow marks as follows: longitudinal broad band on each side of clypeus; a band on inter-antennal region; narrow stripe on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eye. Part of pedicel and flagellum yellow-orange. Mesosoma: Black, with yellow marks as follows: small mark on humeral region of pronotum; a narrow stripe along the posterior edge of pronotum; parategula. Small marks on coxae, distal region of femora and longitudinal bands on tibiae. Metasoma: Black, with yellow marks: a narrow transverse band on apex of T 1, T 2, and S 2 – S 5. Apex of T 3 – T 6 and S 6 with brownish bands on apex. Wings: Apical half hyaline; basal half darker, mainly costal, medial, submedial cells and pterostigma. Veins darker. Pubescence, head: Clypeus with short whitish (better observed in oblique view) pubescence. Frons, vertex and occipital region with long and golden pubescence, while on gena it is short (shorter than on clypeus). Scape with golden pubescence as short as on clypeus. Mesosoma: covered with golden pubescence. Short pubescence on pronotum, mesoscutum and lateral surface of mesosoma and longer (as long as on frons and vertex) on scutellum, metanotum and posterior face of propodeum. Trochanter and basal half of femur of the fore leg with erect golden bristles. External surface of tibiae also with golden and erect bristles, longer than on fore femur. Metasoma: Covered with golden pubescence. Short pubescence on dorsal face of T 1 and other segments. Ventral surface of T 1 with scattered long bristles. Apex of the other segments with long bristles on apex. Surface of integument, head: Clypeus with weak punctation, more evident on basal half; frons with coarse and moderately dense punctation; reduced punctation behind the ocelli and on gena. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and moderately dense punctation as on frons, except on basal half of mesepisternum where it is sparser. Metasoma: Dorsal surface of T 1 with coarser and moderately dense punctation, becoming denser on apex. Lateral surface of T 1 with scattered punctures, while ventral surface without evident punctation. Dorsal surface of T 2 with coarse and dense punctation, becoming slightly weaker and sparser towards lateral surface. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 without evident punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide, with the apex concave forming two rounded projections with weak carinae on apex (Fig. 74); inter-antennal wider than the antennal socket, with a center tubercle on center region; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eye than to each other; occipital carina angled on middle region of gena and close to the compound eyes next to the mandible. Mesosoma: pronotal fovea present; pronotal carina present dorsally and and more developed laterally; humeral region weakly projecting; mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding the mesepisternum; posterior projection of tegula weakle developed and rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum strongly concave on basal half. Basal region of the external surface of fore coxa with a short and weak carina. Metasoma: T 1 very long, more than five times longer than wide (Fig. 40); T 2 longer than wide, with the lateral margins weakly concave (Fig. 56); apical lamella on apex of T 2, becoming reduced towards lateral margins. S 2 with a weak longitudinal elevation, better observed in oblique view. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 long, without longitudinal carina, apex pointed surpassing the apical edge of F 8 (Fig. 90). Ventral surface without microscopis erect bristles. S 7 flattened apically with erect bristles on apex. Color, pubescence, surface of integument and other structure as in females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 106 a, b. Paramere (Fig. 106 c) with bristles on middle area of gonostyle; digitus broad in basal half, becoming slender toward apex (fig. 123), with short and evident bristles on the base and slightly shorter toward apex; cuspis with short and erect bristles; volsella with moderately long and scattered bristles (longer then on digitus); distal lobe truncate, without bristles. Variation: Yellow marks on clypeus reduced; band on apex of T 1 and T 2 may be brownish.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Lectotype and paralectotype female at CMNH (examined). Type locality: Corumbá, Brazil. Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 24. Brèthes, 1906, 6 (13): 336, fig. 18. Bertoni, 1918, (2) 3: 206. Eumenes rufomaculatus; Giordani Soika, 1961, 1: 241. Rodríguez-Palafox, 1996: 479. Hermes et al., 2014, 30: 455, 459, 462, 469.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type male at ZMHB. Type locality: Colombia. Giordani Soika, 1961, 1: 241. Zeteumenes rufomaculata; Bertoni, 1921, 1: 11.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	description	Zetamenes [!] rufomaculata meridionalis Bertoni, 1925, 2: 75.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Type female and male at IBNPY. Type locality: Paraguay (Puerto Bertoni). Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 41. Zeteumenes (Beteumenes) rufomaculata; Bertoni, 1934, 3: 111, 115.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	description	Zeteumenes (Beteumenes) rufomaculata meridionalis; Bertoni, 1934, 3: 111, (ruformaculada [!]) 115. Zeteumenoides rufomaculatus; Giordani Soika, 1972, 104: 110. Eumenes versicolor rufomaculatus; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 17 (key), 41.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Argentina (Corrientes, Entre Rios, Formosa, Misiones); Brazil (DF, MS *; RJ *; SC *, SP *); Bolivia (Santa Cruz); Colombia * (Arauca, Bogotá); Costa Rica (San José); Mexico * (Guerrero, Yucatan); Paraguay (Distrito Capital *, San Pedro); Trinidad * (Tanapuna-Piarco). * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. Eumenes rufomaculatus can be identified by the following features: body predominantly ferrugineous; clypeus slightly wider and shorter than E. filiformis with weak but evident punctation homogeneously distributed (fig. 75); humeral region more projecting than E. filiformis. T 1 very long and narrow; apical region from the ventral surface of T 1 ventrally projecting. Digitus broad on basal half, becoming narrow towards apex (fig. 124), with the dorsal edge weakly angled (not strongly as in E. filiformis). Digitus with short bristles along the dorsal edge, while on the broad region there are no evident bristles.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	description	Redescription Eumenes rufomaculatus Fox, 1899 (Fig. 25) Female. Color, head: Black, except for yellow-ferrugineous marks as follows: two-third apical region of mandibles; labrum; clypeus (except for a dark sport on center); scape, pedicel and mostly F 8 – F 10. A narrow band on upper half of gena, adjacent to the compound eye. Mesosoma: Ferrugineous, with black marks as follows: mesoscutum (with two wide ferrugineous spots on each side of it); narrow transverse stripe on apical edge of metanotum; broad longitudinal stripe on posterior face of the propodeum; entirely mesepimeron and anterior region from the lateral face of the propodeum. Parategula and metanotum with yellow marks. Legs yellowferrugineous, with black marks as follows: coxa, trochanter and basal half of fore leg; trochanter and inner surface of mid legs; inner half of coxa, trochanter and entirely femur of hind legs. The external surface of the mid and hind tarsi is also slightly blackish. Metasoma: dorsal and ventral surface of T 1 black with lateral surface ferrugineous. Dorsal surface of T 2 with a blackish broad longitudinal stripe while lateral surface is reddish-ferrugineous with some blackish stripes. Apex border, including lamella, yellow. This color pattern of T 2 also occurs for S 2. Apical half of T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 yellow. Wings: hyaline, except for costal medial and submedial cells darkened. Pterostigma and veins black. Pubescence, head: Clypeus with short whitish (better observed in oblique view) pubescence. Frons, vertex and occipital region with long and golden pubescence, while on gena it is short (shorter than on clypeus). Scape with golden pubescence as short as on clypeus. Mesosoma: pronotum, mesoscutum, scutellum and metanotum with long golden pubescence (slightly shorter on pronotum and mesoscutum). Mesepisternum and posterior and lateral face of propodeum with whitish pubescence, longer on the latter region. Trochanter and basal half of femur of the fore leg with erect golden bristles. External surface of tibiae also with golden and erect bristles. Metasoma: Covered with golden pubescence. Short pubescence on dorsal face of T 1 and other segments. Ventral surface of T 1 with scattered long bristles. Apex of the other segments with long bristles. Surface of integument, head: Weak but evident punctation homogeneously distributed. Frons with coarse and moderately dense punctation; reduced punctation behind the ocelli and on gena. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and moderately dense punctation as on frons, except on basal half of mesepisternum where it is sparser. Metasoma: Dorsal surface of T 1 with coarser and moderately dense punctation, becoming denser on apex. Lateral surface of T 1 with scattered punctures, while ventral surface without evident punctation. Dorsal surface of T 2 with coarse and dense punctation, becoming slightly weaker and sparser towards lateral surface. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 without evident punctation. Structure, head: Apex of labrum straight; clypeus convex, longer than wide, with the apex concave forming two rounded projections with weak carinae on apex (Fig. 75); inter-antennal area wider than the antennal socket, with a central tubercle; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eye than to each other; occipital carina angled on middle region of gena and close to the compound eyes next to the mandible. Mesosoma: pronotal fovea present; pronotal present dorsally and and more developed laterally; humeral region weakly projecting; mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding the mesepisternum; posterior projection of tegula weakle developed and rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum strongly concave on basal half. Basal region of the external surface of fore coxa with a short and weak carina. Metasoma: T 1 very long, more than five times longer than wide (Fig. 41); T 2 longer than wide, with the lateral margins weakly concave (Fig. 57); apical lamella on apex of T 2, becoming reduced towards lateral margins. Apical region of T 2 (in lateral view) slightly elevated; S 2 with a weak longitudinal elevation, better observed in oblique view. Male: Clypeus narrower than females; F 11 long, without longitudinal carina, apex pointed and surpassing the apical edge of F 8, and without microscopic erect bristles on ventral surface (Fig. 91). S 7 flattened apically with erect bristles on apex. Color, pubescence, surface of integument and other structure as in females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 107 a, b. Paramere (Fig. 107 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus flat dorso-ventrally, broad on basal half, becoming narrow towards apex (fig. 124), with the dorsal edge weakly angled. Short bristles along the dorsal edge of digitus, while on the broad region there is no evident bristles. Cuspis with erect short bristles; distal lobe truncate, without bristles. Variation: Clypeus yellowish, sometimes with wide black spot on center. Marks on metasoma and mesoscutum may vary in size and may present some yellow marks mostly on the pronotum and propodeum. Some specimens, mostly from Mexico, showed a strong sinuosity on the dorsal surface of T 2, although in the same locality we examined specimens with weak sinuosity. Males of these specimens had their genitalia examined and no significant differences were observed from those in other localities.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD0F324FF309089D2C2F8DA.taxon	materials_examined	Type material: Lectotype ♀: Eumenes rufomaculata Fox, 1899 (CMNH): ‘ April’ ‘ Corumbá’ ‘ lowland’ ‘ Eumenes \ rufomaculata \ Types Fox’ ‘ LECTOTYPE ♀ \ Eumenes \ rufomaculata Fox, 1899 \ des. Carpenter & Vecht’. Paralectotype ♀: Eumenes rufomaculata Fox, 1899 (CMNH): ‘ April’ ‘ Pedra Branca’ ‘ Eumenes \ filiformis var. \ rufomaculatus \ cotype ♀ Fox’ ‘ rufomaculatus \ Fx’ ‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♀ \ Eumenes \ rufomaculata Fox, 1899 \ des. Carpenter & Vecht’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD7F326FF309602D074FAA7.taxon	materials_examined	Type data: Lectotype female at NHM (n ° 18.176). Type locality: “ L’Amérique ”. de Saussure, 1855, 3: 132. Smith, 1857, 5: 30. de Saussure, 1875, 254: 106. Ashmead, 1900, 1900: 312. Eumenes fulvomaculata Fox, 1899, 1899: 458, 461 (key). Type data: Lectotype and paralectotype female at CMNH (examined). Type locality: Brazil (Pará). Dalla Torre, 1904, 19: 23. Zavattari, 1912, 78 A (4): 131. Brèthes, 1920 (1919), 88: 394. Giordani Soika, 1941, 2: 223 (flavomaculata [!]). Carpenter & van der Vecht, 1991, 60: 232 (designation of lectotype). Zeteumenes fulvomaculata; Bertoni, 1921, 1: 11	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD7F326FF309602D074FAA7.taxon	description	Eumenes (Eumenes) versicolor; Bequaert, 1928, (10) 2: 162. Giordani Soika, 1941, 2: 223. Zeteumenes (Beteumenes) fulvomaculata; Bertoni, 1934, 3: 111. Zeteumenoides fulvomaculatus; Giordani Soika, 1972, 104: 110. Eumenes (Zeteumenoides) versicolor; Giordani Soika, 1978, 29: 17 (key), 37. Carpenter & van der Vecht, 1991, 60: 231 (designation of Lectotype). Rasmussen & Asenjo, 2009, ZooKeys 15: 38 (list).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD7F326FF309602D074FAA7.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Brazil (PA *, RO); Colombia (Meta); French Guyane (Cayenne); Peru (Loreto). * Records from the literature.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD7F326FF309602D074FAA7.taxon	discussion	Comments and diagnosis. We did not examine the type specimens of Eumenes versicolor, therefore we based the redescription of the species on the lectotype of E. fulvomaculata. Eumenes versicolor can be identified by the following features: body predominantly black with well developed marks mainly on mesosoma; clypeus with weak punctation, less evident than in E. rufomaculatus (fig. 76); humeral region more projecting than E. filiformis. T 1 very long and narrow; apical region from the ventral surface of T 1 ventrally projecting. Digitus broad in basal half, becoming narrow towards apex (fig. 125), with the dorsal edge weakly angled (not strongly as on E. filiformis). Digitus with short bristles along the dorsal edge, while there are scattered short bristles on the broad region (more evident than in E. rufomaculatus).	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD7F326FF309602D074FAA7.taxon	description	Redescription of the lectotype of Eumenes fulvomaculata Fox, 1899 (fig. 26) Female. Color, head: Black with yellow marks as follows: apical half of mandibles; labrum; clypeus and inter-antennal region and slightly above it; a longitudinal stripe on apical half of gena, adjacent to the compound eyes; basal region of scape and part of pedicel and flagellum, while F 8 – F 10 are predominantly yellow. Mesosoma: Dorsal surface of pronotum yellow with a small black spot near pre-tegular carina, while the anterior face and the region below humeral region entirely black; mesepimeron and mesepisternum black, except for a big yellow spot on the apical half and center region; mesoscutum black, with a triangular shape yellow mark on each side of it; tegula black with yellow mark on anterior and posterior regions. Yellow marks as follows: parategula; scutelum, except for a blackish triangular shape on basal half; metanotum; dorsal face of propodeum, except for a longitudinal broad stripe on middle region; posterior half of lateral face of propodeum, while the anterior is blackish. External face of coxae yellow, while inner face is blackish; trochanters black; external face of fore and hind femora yellow, while inner face and entirely hind femur are black; entirely fore tibia and part of mid tibia yellow and just a spot on apical region of hind tibia; entirely fore tarsus yellow; mid tarsus also yellow, except for the Ts 5 blackish; entirely hind tarsus blakish. Metasoma: T 1 black, except for the yellow regions as follows: longitudinal stripe along the lateral face (except the basal region), which continue up to a transverse stripe on apex region. Ventral face of T 1 darkened, brownish-ferrugineous. T 2 black, except for a transverse stripe on apex, which extends to the lateral face, where there is a big yellow spot on the middle region. Some shining brownishferrugineous marks on lateral face, between the big yellow spot and the apical stripe. Apical lamella of T 1 yellow. S 2 yellow, except for the blackish basal region. T 3 – T 6 and S 3 – S 6 entirely yellow. Wings hyaline, with the costal and medial cells slightly darker. Veins black becoming brownish towards apex. Pubescence, head: Clypeus with short whitish (better observed in oblique view) pubescence. Frons, vertex and occipital region with long and golden pubescence, while on gena it is short (shorter than on clypeus). Scape with golden pubescence as short as on clypeus. Mesosoma: pronotum, mesoscutum, scutellum and metanotum with long golden pubescence (slightly shorter on pronotum and mesoscutum). Mesepisternum and posterior and lateral face of propodeum with whitish pubescence, longer on the latter. Trochanter and basal half of femur of the fore leg with erect golden bristles. External surface of tibiae also with golden and erect bristles. Metasoma: Covered with golden pubescence. Short pubescence on dorsal face of T 1 and other segments. Ventral surface of T 1 with scattered long bristles. Apex of the other segments with long bristles. Surface of integument, head: Weak punctation on clypeus homogeneously distributed. Frons with coarse and moderately dense punctation; reduced punctation behind the ocelli and on gena. Mesosoma: Covered with coarse and moderately dense punctation as on frons, except on basal half of mesepisternum where it is sparser. Metasoma: Dorsal surface of T 1 with coarser and moderately dense punctation, becoming denser on apex. Lateral surface of T 1 with scattered punctures, while ventral surface without evident punctation. Dorsal surface of T 2 with coarse and dense punctation, becoming slightly weaker and sparser towards lateral surface. T 3 – T 6 and S 2 – S 6 without evident punctation. Structure, head: Clypeus convex, longer than wide, with the apex concave forming two rounded projections with weak carinae on apex (Fig. 76); inter-antennal area wider than the antennal socket, with a central tubercle; lateral ocelli closer to the compound eye than to each other; occipital carina angled on middle region of gena and close to the compound eyes next to the mandible. Mesosoma: pronotal fovea present; pronotal present dorsally and and more developed laterally; humeral region weakly projecting; mesepimeron slightly elevated regarding the mesepisternum; posterior projection of tegula weakly developed and rounded; parategula lamelliform; posterior face of propodeum strongly concave on basal half. Basal region of the external surface of fore coxa with a short and weak carina. Metasoma: T 1 very long, more than five times longer than wide (Fig. 42); T 2 longer than wide, with the lateral margins weakly concave (Fig. 58); apical lamella on apex of T 2, becoming reduced towards lateral margins. Apical region of T 2 (in lateral view) slightly elevated; S 2 with a weak longitudinal elevation, better observed in oblique view. Male: Clypeus and inter-antennal region slightly narrow. F 11 long, without longitudinal carina, with the apex pointed, surpassing the apical edge of F 8 and without microscopic bristles on ventral surface (Fig. 92). Ventral face of S 7 flat, with long bristles along the edge. Color, pubescence, surface of integument and other structure as in females. Male genitalia: Aedeagus as in figure 108 a, b. Paramere (fig. 108 c) with long bristles on middle region of gonostyle; digitus flat dorso-ventrally, broad on basal half, becoming narrow towards apex (fig. 125), with the dorsal edge weakly angled. Short bristles along the dorsal edge of digitus, while on the broad region occur scattered short bristles. Cuspis with erect short bristles; distal lobe truncate, without bristles.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
03C5878FFFD7F326FF309602D074FAA7.taxon	materials_examined	Type material: The lectotype of Eumenes fulvomaculata Fox, 1899 is in good condition and bears the labels: ‘ Santarém’ ‘ Eumenes \ fulvomaculatus \ Types Fox’ ‘ LECTOTYPE ♀ \ Eumenes \ fulvomaculatus Fox, 1899 \ des. Carpenter & Vecht’. Paralectotype ♀: Eumenes fulvomaculata Fox, 1899 is in good condition and bears the labels ‘ Eumenes \ filiformis \ fulvomaculatus \ cotype ♀ Fox’ ‘ fulvomaculatus \ Type Fx’ ‘ PARALECTOTYPE ♀ \ Eumenes \ rufomaculata Fox, 1899 \ des. Carpenter & Vecht’.	en	Grandinete, Yuri Campanholo, Noll, Fernando Barbosa, Carpenter, James (2018): Taxonomic Review of Eumenes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae, Eumeninae) from the New World. Zootaxa 4459 (1): 1-52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4459.1.1
