• Hosts

This species was described from a single female from Corona, Colorado, a locality which I have been unable to locate. Cockerell remarked, however, that the collection was made above timber-line which suggests a high altitude. The species has remained virtually unknown since that time although (Linsley, 1951) added California to the distribution. During this study I have seen few specimens which I can assign to this species, the type of which I have examined at the U.S. National Museum.

The females which I assign to this species all agree more or less closely with Cockerell's original description and with the type. The lateral face marks are commonly absent; when present they are greatly reduced, restricted to an irregular stripe or blotch along the lower inner orbits. Since females of other species of Paraprosopis taken in the same area frequently also have reduced face marks, this character alone is of little value. The pronotal collar seems always to be immaculate; the pronotal lobes and tegulae are maculate or not. As a rule, only the hind tibiae have a yellow basal spot, although some have such a mark on the fore tibiae.

The females most closely resemble those of H. coloradensis, to which this species appears to be related. They may be separated from that species by the distinctly flattened scutellum which is distinctly more shining than the mesoscutum and with fine, well-separated punctures. The metanotum, too, is flattened. As in H. coloradensis, it is dull and densely tesselate, but has distinct, well-separated punctures about equal to those of the scutellum. Females from areas where this species occurs together with H. coloradensis differ from that species also in having the erect hairs of the mesoscutum very sparse and short, so that they are hardly distinguishable from the reclinate hairs. These erect hairs are much shorter, usually no more than one-third as long, than those of the scutellum. In the sympatric females of H. coloradensis the erect mesoscutal hairs are abundant, and are usually as long, or nearly so, as those of the scutellum.

The presumed male of this species is similar to that of H. coloradensis but the sides of the face are not depressed as in that species. There are tangible differences in head shape as may be seen upon comparing figures 8F and 8G. Although the eyes are apparently more strongly convergent below in H. personatellus this is not actually the case, as the ratios are very nearly identical in the two species. The greater eye length of H. personatellus may be used as a convenient factor. In this species the eye is 3.4 times its greatest width but twice as long as the lower interorbital distance. In H. coloradensis the eye is 3.8 times longer than its greatest width, but only about 1.7 times longer than the lower interorbital width. The few males of H. personatellus which I have seen are all more densely pubescent on the thoracic dorsum than is true of H. coloradensis. The difference, however, is a matter of degree, and I do not attribute much significance to this character. Otherwise, the males are very similar externally and no reliable differences between them have been discovered.

• National Biological Information Infrastructure
• National Science Foundation