Search

Within the well-studied Palearctic entomofauna, it is often assumed that the discovery of new species is limited to resolving cryptic species complexes within dark taxa. Herein, we describe a highly distinctive species of Aphanogmus Thomson, 1858 (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae) from Germany and provide a COI barcoding sequence for the new species. We present a 3D reconstruction of the holotype based on micro-CT to serve as a cybertype. The females of Aphanogmus kretschmanni Moser sp. nov. are diagnosed by two rows of prominent spines on the ventral edge of the 7th metasomal sternite, a character set that has not previously been found in Hymenoptera. We analyse the functional morphology of the ovipositor mechanism and discuss hypotheses regarding the functional implications of the unique modification of the 7th metasomal sternite. Possible host associations are reviewed and the taxonomic placement of the new species is discussed.

Aphanogmus kretschmanni Moser sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 8848B3FB-DC1D-465C-9E67-284EE86BB4CA Figs 1–3 Diagnosis (female) The female has seven conspicuous spines in two rows along the ventral edge of the 7 th metasomal sternite, with two spines next to each other in the 1st and 5th position. Etymology The specific name is a patronym for Winfried Kretschmann, the current Minister-President of the state of Baden-Württemberg (Germany), to honour his scientific curiosity and commitment to preserving biodiversity in his political environment. Type material Holotype GERMANY • ♀ (the holotype is missing the right fore- and mid-tarsus); Baden-Württemberg, Tübingen, Hirschau, Riedweingärten, plot number 4400; 48.504817° N, 8.985067° E; 375 m a.s.l.; 29 Aug.–12 Sep. 2014; Kothe T., Engelhardt M., Bartsch D. leg.; Malaise trap; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000227. The 3D model of the holotype, which serves as a cybertype, as well as the original CT image series are available online through MorphoSource (CT image series: https://doi.org/10.17602/M2/ M449721; full habitus mesh: https://doi.org/10.17602/M2/M449724; post-edited full habitus mesh https://doi.org/10.17602/M2/M449727). Paratypes GERMANY • 1 ♀ (in immaculate condition); Baden-Württemberg, Enzkreis, Königsbach-Stein, NSG 2.119 Beim Steiner Mittelberg; 48.970371° N, 8.659000° E; 181 m a.s.l.; 22 May–5 Jun. 2019; Entomologischer Verein Krefeld e. V. 1905 leg.; Malaise trap; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Hym_027509 • 1 ♀ (in immaculate condition); Baden-Württemberg, Tübingen, Hirschau, Oberes Tal, plot number 4244; 48.505033° N, 8.993467° E; 368 m a.s.l.; 17–31 Jul. 2014; Kothe T., Engelhardt M., Bartsch D. leg.; Malaise trap; ZFMK SMNS_Hym_Cer_000647 • 1 ♀ (in immaculate condition); Baden-Württemberg, Tübingen, Hirschau, Oberes Tal, plot number 4244; 48.505033° N, 8.993467° E; 368 m a.s.l.; 29 Aug.–12 Sep. 2014; Kothe T., Engelhardt M., Bartsch D. leg.; Malaise trap; ZSM SMNS_Hym_Cer_000648. Additional material examined GERMANY • 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype; 6–20 Jun. 2014; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000408 • 1 ♀; Baden-Württemberg, Tübingen, Hirschau, Oberes Tal, plot number 4244; 48.505033° N, 8.993467° E; 368 m a.s.l.; 17–31 Jul. 2014; Kothe T., Engelhardt M., Bartsch D. leg.; Malaise trap; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000425 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1179430; GenBank: OP722468; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000467 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1179432; GenBank: OP722465; SMNS SMNS_ Hym_Cer_000468 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1179434, GenBank: OP722466; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000470 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1179433; GenBank: OP722464; UNHP SMNS_Hym_Cer_000469 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; UNHP SMNS_Hym_Cer_000488 • 2 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 29 Aug.–12 Sep. 2014; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000440 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000464 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1179428; GenBank: OP722469; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000465 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1179429; GenBank: OP722462; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000466 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 12–26 Sep. 2014; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1177257; GenBank: OP722467; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000445 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000446 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 26 Sep.–9 Oct. 2014; BOLD Sample ID: SMNS_1177266; GenBank: OP722463; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000451 • 1 ♀; Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe, Östringen, NSG 2.217 Apfelberg, plot number 9836; 49.167541° N, 8.790300° E; 181 m a.s.l.; 16–30 Jul. 2019; Entomologischer Verein Krefeld e. V. 1905 leg.; Malaise trap; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000543 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 27 Aug.–10 Sep. 2019; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Hym_027357 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 10–24 Sep. 2019; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000571 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 24 Sep.–8 Oct. 2019; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000544 • 2 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; 8–22 Oct. 2019; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Hym_027358. • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Cer_000649 • 4 ♀; Baden-Württemberg, Enzkreis, Königsbach-Stein, NSG 2.119 Beim Steiner Mittelberg; 48.970371° N, 8.659000° E; 181 m a.s.l.; 3–17 Jul. 2019; Entomologischer Verein Krefeld e. V. 1905 leg.; Malaise trap; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Hym_027558. • 2 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; 17–31 Jul. 2019; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Hym_027726. • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 28 Aug.–11 Sep. 2019; SMNS SMNS_Hym_Hym_027685. For detailed description of localities, habitats and further material see Supp. file 3. Description COLOURATION. Head dark brown, almost black. Mesosoma dorsally concolourous with head, ventrally dark chestnut brown. Metasoma lighter brown. Scape, distal end of pedicel and tibiae light amber brown, tarsi pale ochre, flagellar segments brown, concolourous with femora, distal flagellar segments slightly darker. Wings entirely hyaline. Wing venation light brown, marginal vein darker, light brown stigmal vein with dark margin. MEASUREMENTS. Total body length is 0.7–1.1 mm (holotype: 1 mm). HEAD. Entire head with imbricate sculpture. Face, frons and eyes covered in short whitish pubescence. Oval in frontal view, 1.1–1.4 (1.3) times as broad as high. Head hypognathous. Truncated in lateral view with preoccipital carina delimiting sharply the deeply concave preoccipital lunula. Preoccipital carina medially interrupted by preoccipital furrow, which fades anteriorly ending inside the ocellar triangle posterior to the median ocellus. Preoccipital furrow as wide anteriorly as posteriorly and crenulate along its entire length. Crenulate occipital carina with continuous median flange. Eyes large, 0.6–0.7 (0.7) times as high as head. Ocellar triangle obtuse, POL:LOL: 1.25; OOL:POL: 0.8. Postocellar carina absent. Preocellar pit present. Anterior ocellar fovea extended ventrally into short facial sulcus reaching dorsal margin of frontal depression.Antennal scrobe present, ventrally delimited by intertorular carina. Clypeus convex and rectangular (1.5 times as broad as high). Supraclypeal depression, subtorular carina, carina delimiting antennal scrobe, frontal ledge and subantennal groove absent. Mandibles with two distinct teeth, without mandibular lancea. Mandible slender, length along ventral edge 3.3 times as long as height of mandible measured in the middle of its length. Maxillae with four palpomeres. ANTENNAE. Antennae with eight flagellar segments. Scape distally with flagellar scrobe. Scape 2.1–3.1 (2.5) times as long as pedicel. Pedicel 1.2 times as long as F1. Scape as long as pedicel, F1 and F2 combined. F1 significantly longer than any segments F2–F7 but shorter than F8; F2 to F7 of similar length. F8 significantly longer than other flagellar segments, longer than F6 and F7 combined. Maximum width of scape 1.6 times maximum width of pedicel. Width of flagellar segments F1–F8 increasing steadily, F8 almost as broad as scape. F1 cylindrical, twice as long as broad; F2 subquadrate, 1.3 times longer than broad; F3–F7 subquadrate; F8 cylindrical, twice as long as broad. MESOSOMA. Mesoscutum, mesoscutellar-axillar complex, pronotum and anterior mesopleural area with imbricate sculpture of flat scutes, lower half of mesometapleuron smooth, upper half with roughly strigate sculpture arising anteriorly from the anterior mesopleural sulcus and the mesometapleural sulcus. Mesoscutum and mesoscutellum with numerous short pale setae, axillular carina hemmed with one row of white axillular setae. Mesosoma laterally compressed, 1.2–1.8 (1.6) times as long as broad, 1.4–1.6 (1.5) times as high as broad. Mesoscutum broadest part of mesosoma, maximum mesoscutal width 2.1 times as wide as mesoscutellum. Pronotum triangular in lateral view with transverse pronotal sulcus extending halfway along pronotum. Ventral pronotal pit present. Anterior portion of mesoscutum steeply sloping in lateral view, anteriorly articulating with pronotum at an acute angle. Median mesoscutal sulcus complete and posteriorly reaching transscutal articulation, notauli absent. Mesoscutum posterolaterally delimited by pronounced parascutal carina.Axillar carina pronounced anteriorly but fading posteriorly. Interaxillar sulcus present, extending medially into scutoscutellar sulcus. Axillae distinct in dorsal view. Scutoscutellar sulcus broad and foveate, angled medially and reaching laterally the ventral margin of mesoscutellum. Circumscutellar carina sharply pronounced, lined with numerous axillular setae. Axillula very steep, almost vertical in relation to scutellar disc. Frenal area very short and separated from mesoscutellum by a steeply plunging ridge. Metanotal-propodeal sulcus foveate. Anteromedian projection of the metanoto-propodeo-metapecto-mesopectal complex simple and straight, posteriorly extending the mesonotum. Metanotal-propodeal sulcus distinctly scrobiculate. Mesometapleuron roughly triangular, higher than long in lateral view. Posterior edge of mesometapleuron extends into blunt, down-curved spine at fusion point of metapleural carina and ventral metapleural carina. Dorsal mesometapleural carina along its length slightly undulate, interrupted by propodeal spiracle, posteriorly extending into posterior propodeal projection. Ventral metapleural carina distinctly raised, continuing ventrally into raised ventral mesopleural carina and dorsally into metapleural carina.Anterior mesopleural sulcus distinct, separating anterior mesopleural area from rest of mesopleuron. Mesometapleural sulcus extending halfway across mesometapleuron, fading posteriorly. Lateral propodeal carina distinct, crossing propodeal spiracle. Posterior propodeal projections pronounced and rounded. LEGS. Proximal articulation of metacoxa distinctly foveate. Medial side of hind tibia with dense bristles in distal half, first tarsal segment with two rows of bristles medially. Pro-, meso and metatrochanter of similar length. Femur size increasing from pro- to metafemur, mesofemur 1.1 times, metafemur 1.3 times as long as profemur. Metatibia 1.14 times as long as mesotibia and 1.47 times as long as protibia. 5 th tarsomere of hindleg 1.14 times as long as that of midleg and 1.29 times as long as that of foreleg. Tarsi of similar widths. Front and mid tarsal claws are of comparable size, hind tarsal claws slightly larger. WINGS. Forewing very long, 0.73–0.96 mm (0.81 mm), extending distinctly beyond metasoma. Forewing broad, 1.5 times as long as broad. Marginal setae at an acute angle (34.2°) to anterior wing margin. Posterior margin of forewing remarkably straight at level of stigmal vein, slightly sclerotised and without setation proximal to straight part of the wing margin. Marginal vein with triangular elements (sensu Mikó et al. 2018). Translucent break between marginal vein and linear stigma. Stigmal vein uniformly bent, slightly increasing in width posteriorly. Anterio-proximal part of marginal vein lined with jutting setae. Hindwing slender, 4.1 times as long as broad. Posterior margin of hind wing lined with setae, setae 0.23 times as long as maximum width of hind wing, these setae significantly longer than setae on forewing. No venation, wing slightly sclerotised below hamuli. Three hamuli present. WIP of forewing indicates highest thickness of wing membrane below distal portion of the marginal vein posterior to the costal notch and lowest thickness on distal posterior wing margin. WIP of hindwing with large elliptical area of low membrane thickness along the setose distal half of the posterior wing margin. METASOMA. Syntergum margined by transverse carina anteriorly. Syntergum with nine longitudinal striae, present only anteriorly and distributed with subequal distance over width of metasoma. Anterolateral margin of synsternum with distinct foveate carina that converges ventrally in a keel. Ventral edge of 7 th metasomal sternite with seven conspicuous spines in two rows, with two spines next to each other in the most ventral and 5 th position. Syntergum broadest tergite and slightly longer than all other tergites combined. WATERSTON’S EVAPORATORIUM. On metasomal T6 oblong, acrotergal calyx present, distal crenulate carina on T6 present on caudal setal row, submedian patches absent, campaniform sensillae absent, tergal apodeme with sclerotised ridge along inner margin that also transverses the base of the apodeme, tergal apodemes parallel, at most slightly diverging distally, evaporatorium without basomedial constriction. OVIPOSITOR. With a large distance between the anterior angle of the first valvifer (ang) and the intervalvifer articulation (iva). First valvifer angled at the tergo-valvifer articulation (tva), therefore appearing convex. First valvifer not subdivided. Tva situated approximately in the middle of the posterior margin of the first valvifer (1vf). Basal line of the second valvifer sharply defined. Dorsal projection of second valvifer shorter than length of anterior area of second valvifer. Anterior and posterior section of the dorsal flange of the second valvifer sharply defined. Venom gland reservoir present, surrounded by second valvifer. First valvula tapers distally in lateral view. Anterior area of the second valvifer more than 2.0 times as high as bulb in lateral view. Apodemes of S7 without apparent modifications. Variation The brown colouration of the mesosoma and the anterior part of the metasoma including the synsternum and syntergum of SMNS_Hym_Cer_000446 is considerably brighter than in the holotype and the anteromedian projection of the metanoto-propodeo-metapecto-mesopectal complex is almost clear in this specimen. COI barcodes confirmed that this specimen belongs to A. kretschmanni sp. nov. Discussion Taxonomic placement of Aphanogmus kretschmanni Moser sp. nov. In the Palearctic, the family Ceraphronidae contains 112 species in 6 genera. Aphanogmus Thomson, 1858 is the most species-rich genus with 52 described species (Johnson & Musetti 2004; Buhl et al. 2010; Matsuo 2016), whilst four other genera comprise no more than six species. Aphanogmus is characterised mainly by a laterally compressed mesosoma, which is taller than broad (Figs 1, 3A–D) as well as trapezoidal flagellar segments on the male antennae with sensillae at least as long as the width of the flagellar segments. Currently, Aphanogmus is separated into three species groups (Evans et al. 2005). Morphologically, A. kretschmanni sp. nov. falls into the fumipennis species group based on a complete mesoscutal median sulcus and the presence of a gastral basal carina. In Hellén’s key, the new species keys to A. fumipennis Thomson, 1858 (Hellén 1966). However, A. kretschmanni is easily distinguishable from A. fumipennis by the distinct spines on S7 as well as the lack of prominent tufts of dense hairs along the outer margin of the hind coxae that are diagnostic for A. fumipennis. Further, this new species resembles several species within the Aphanogmus hakonensis complex, i.e., A. amoratus Dessart & Alekseev, 1982; A. captiosus Poasszek & Dessart, 1996, A. goniozi Dessart, 1988; A. hakonensis Ashmead, 1904; A. jarvensis (Girault, 1917); A. manilae (Ashmead, 1904) and A. thylax Polaszek & Dessart, 1996. Shared morphological characters are found mainly on the mesosoma, particularly the sharp circumscutellar carina, the carinate metanotal-propodeal sulcus, the prominent anteromedian projection of the metanoto-propodeo-metapecto-mesopectal complex as well as the paired posterior propodeal projections and the lateral striations on the mesopleuron. All species within the hakonensis complex have an Indo-Australian distribution with a few occurrences in the westernmost Palearctic. They are hyperparasitoids of Hymenoptera that parasitize Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758 and can only be determined to species level through male genitalia (Polaszek & Dessart 1996). Recently, the Waterston’s evaporatorium on the 6 th metasomal tergite was discovered to be a taxonomically significant character complex in Ceraphronidae (Ulmer et al. 2021). Major differences in the structure of the Waterston’s evaporatoria of Aphanogmus and Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 were found and are supported by a cladistic analysis, which returned a monophyletic Aphanogmus group and a paraphyletic Ceraphron group (Ulmer et al. 2021). Apart from Aphanogmus s. str., the Aphanogmus group includes the smaller genera Synarsis Foerster, 1878, Gnathoceraphron Dessart & Bin, 1981 and Elysoceraphron Szelényi, 1936 based on striking similarities of the Waterston’s evaporatoria of these taxa. The Waterston’s evaporatorium of the newly described A. kretschmanni sp. nov. lacks campaniform sensilla on T5 and T6 (Fig. 2D), a character that is considered an autapomorphy of Elysoceraphron by Ulmer et al. (2021). However, there are several differences in external morphology that contradict the placement of the newly described species into Elysoceraphron: (1) the mesoscutellum of A. kretschmanni is rounded posteriorly rather than subrectangular, which is the diagnostic character for Elysoceraphron; (2) the head of A. kretschmanni is significantly more transverse, a character shared by most species of Aphanogmus, than that of the Palearctic E. hungaricus Szelényi, 1936 or of the Oriental E. aadi Bijoy & Rajmohana, 2021 with the interocular distance being larger than the eye width (A. kretschmanni: 158:146 µm; E. hungaricus: 152:228 µm; E. aadi: 146:222 µm); (3) the anteromedian projection of the metanoto-propodeo-metapecto-mesopectal complex is straight in A. kretschmanni whereas it is upcurved in Elysoceraphron. The genus Elysoceraphron was first described based on two female specimens of Elysoceraphron hungaricus Szelényi, 1936 collected in Hungary (Szelényi 1936). The male was described two decades later from Czechoslovakia (Masner 1957). Since then, the genus has not received much attention. It appears only briefly in a report adding findings from Sweden and Siberia (Dessart & Alekseev 1980), a few remarks on the taxonomic status of the genus (Masner 1957; Dessart 1975), a short mention in two catalogues (Muesebeck & Walkley 1956; Johnson & Musetti 2004) as well as in keys (Dessart 1962; Alekseev 1978a, 1978b, 1995; Dessart & Cancemi 1987). Recently, a second species, Elysoceraphron aadi, was described from India (Bijoy & Rajmohana 2021). There has

Platygastridae (Hymenoptera) is a diverse family of parasitoid wasps for which few studies of internal morphology have been conducted. The monophyly of the group is undisputed based on recently published molecular data, but based on morphology, the family is diagnosable from other platygastroids only by a combination of character reductions. In the present study we explored the mesosoma of Platygastroidea and found two new synapomorphies for Platygastridae: an externally visible anterior mesofurcal pit, which corresponds to an invagination that connects to the anterior portion of the mesofurca, and internally, a posteriorly shifted origin of the first wing flexors. The absence of a mesofurcal bridge and the exclusively mesopectal origin of the fore wing flexors are treated as synapomorphies for Platygastridae+Janzenellidae. Phylogenetic implications and evolutionary hypotheses regarding these traits are discussed.

Species of the genus Dendrocerus Ratzeburg, 1852 (Hymenoptera: Megaspilidae) from China were studied. Six species are recorded, of which two known species, D. carpenteri (Curtis, 1829) and D. laticeps (Hedicke, 1929) are re-described; and two species are described as new to science, D. anisodontus Wang, Chen and Mikó sp. nov. and D. bellus Wang, Chen and Mikó sp. nov.. Sequences of the 28S rDNA were generated to associate both sexes of the same species.

Bumble bees are characterized by their thick setal pile that imparts aposematic color patterns often used for species-level identification. Like all bees, the single-celled setae of bumble bees are branched, an innovation thought important for pollen collection. To date no studies have quantified the types of setal morphologies and their distribution on these bees, information that can facilitate understanding of their adaptive ecological function. This study defines several major setal morphotypes in the common eastern bumble bee

The Waterston’s evaporatorium (=Waterston’s organ), a cuticular modification surrounding the opening of an exocrine gland located on metasomal tergite 6, is characterized and examined for taxonomic significance within the parasitoid wasp family Ceraphronidae. Modification of the abdominal musculature and the dorsal vessel are also broadly discussed for the superfamily Ceraphronoidea, with a novel abdominal pulsatory organ for Apocrita being discovered and described for the first time. Cuticular modification of T6, due to the presence of the Waterston’s evaporatorium, provides a character complex that allows for genus- and species-level delimitation in Ceraphronidae. The matching of males and females of a species using morphology, a long standing challenge for the group, is also resolved with this new character set. Phylogenetic analysis including 19 Waterston’s evaporatorium related characters provides support for current generic groupings within the Ceraphronidae and elaborates on previously suggested synapomorphies. Potential function of the Waterston’s organ and its effects on the dorsal vessel are discussed.

Exploitation of organisms by multiple parasite species is common in nature, but interactions among parasites have rarely been studied. Myrmica ants are rich in parasites. Among others, the ectoparasitic Rickia wasmannii fungus and the parasitic caterpillars of myrmecophilous Phengaris butterflies often infect the same Myrmica colonies. In this study, we examined the effects of R. wasmannii on the adoption, long-term development, and survival of P. alcon. In laboratory conditions, caterpillars introduced into nests of Myrmica scabrinodis uninfected with R. wasmannii survived significantly longer compared to caterpillars introduced into infected nests. In the field, joint infection was less common than expected if both parasites exploited M. scabrinodis colonies independently. Pre-pupal caterpillars of P. alcon were somewhat larger in nests infected with R. wasmannii than those found in uninfected nests. Based on these results it seems that R. wasmannii infection of M. scabrinodis affects the survival and development of P. alcon caterpillars, suggesting competition between these two ant parasites.

Teleasinae are commonly collected scelionids that are the only known egg parasitoids of carabid beetles and therefore play a crucial role in shaping carabid populations in natural and agricultural ecosystems. We review the available host information of Teleasinae, report a new host record, and revise Gryonoides Dodd, 1920, a morphologically distinct teleasine genus. We review the generic concept of Gryonoides and provide diagnoses and descriptions of thirteen Gryonoides species and two varieties: G. glabriceps Dodd, 1920, G. pulchellus Dodd, 1920 (= G. doddi Ogloblin, 1967, syn. nov. and G. pulchricornis Ogloblin, 1967, syn. nov.), G. brasiliensis Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. flaviclavus Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. fuscoclavatus Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. garciai Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. mexicali Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. mirabilicornis Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. obtusus Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. paraguayensis Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. rugosus Masner & Mikó, sp. nov., G. uruguayensis Masner & Mikó, sp. nov. We treat Gryonoides scutellaris Dodd, 1920, as status uncertain. Gryonoides mirabilicornis Masner & Mikó, sp. nov. is the only known teleasine with tyloids on two consecutive flagellomeres, a well-known trait of Sparasionidae. An illustrated identification key to species of Gryonoides, a queryable semantic representation of species descriptions using PhenoScript, and a simple approach for making Darwin Core Archive files in taxonomic revisions accessible are provided.

Conostigmus popenoei (Ashmead, 1893) Fig. 40 Species Comments and History. Ashmead (1893) described this species from a single female specimen collected in Manhattan, Kansas. The specimen is deposited in the USNM, and is point-mounted and in relatively good condition, although there is dirt and dust on the specimen, which can obscure characters. The female has the preoccipital furrow present and the sternaulus absent. The female type specimen bears a close resemblance to C. duncani, C. orcasensis and C. pergandei, which are all known only by male specimens, and it could be the female matching one of these species. Unfortunately, the female type specimen of C. popenoei remains the only known specimen of its species; we were unable to locate any additional females or male specimens that match this species. For now, we consider Conostigmus popenoei as a species inquirenda. Material Examined. Lectotype female: USA: USNMENT01339764 (USNM)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on pages 73-74, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Ashmead, W. H. (1893) A monograph of the North American Proctotrypidae. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 45, 1 - 472. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.45.1"]}

Conostigmus nevadensis (Kieffer, 1906) Species Comments and History. As with C. integriceps, Kieffer (1906) described this species from a female specimen or specimens collected from San Mateo, California, with the male unknown. Kieffer (1906) described the species as being macropterous with a black body and ���Grund und Unterseite des Schaftes, H��ften und Beine lehmgelb (pg. 259). Kieffer (1906) distinguished this species from the female of C. integriceps by the character ���Scheitel mit L��ngsfurche��� (pg. 258), which we interpret as the presence of the postocellar carina, and the character ���Stirneindruck bis zur Mitte der Augen reichend��� (pg. 258), which could indicate either a long preoccipital furrow, ending inside the ocellar triangle or at the anterior ocellus, or a facial sulcus reaching half the length of the compound eye. Kieffer later transferred the species to the genus Conostigmus (1909), then published another description and key (1914). In the key, C. nevadensis is distinguished from other Nearctic female Conostigmus by the character ���Scheitel mit einer L��ngsfurche vom Hinterrande bis zur vorderen ocelli��� (Kieffer, 1914, pg. 178), which appears to confirm that the preoccipital furrow ends at the anterior ocellus. The location of Kieffer���s type material is unknown, and the characters given in the original description could apply to several different Conostigmus species (Kieffer, 1906). Hoebeke (1980) recorded a paratype specimen present in the Cornell University Insect Collection (CUIC) in Ithaca, NY, USA, but we were unable to confirm this. Until the female can be studied and more specimens located and examined, including males, we consider Conostigmus nevadensis as a species inquirenda., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on page 58, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Kieffer, J. J. (1906) Beschreibung neuer Proctotrypiden aus Nord- und Zentralamerika. Berliner Entomolologische Zeitschrift, 50, 237 - 290. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / mmnd. 47919060305","Kieffer, J. J. (1914) Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich, 42. lfg. R. Friedlander und sohn., Berlin, 254 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Hoebeke (1980) Catalogue of the Hymenoptera types in the Cornell University Insect Collection. Part I: Symphyta and Apocrita (Parasitica). Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, 9, 1 - 36."]}

Conostigmus subinermis (Kieffer, 1907) Species Comments and History. Johnson and Musetti (2004) listed this species as having a Holarctic distribution, but this appears to be a mistake. Kieffer (1907) described two species, subinermis and nigriceps, from female specimens collected in Italy. Dessart (1972a) later synonymized nigriceps with subinermis, but again, there is no mention of North American specimens. Dessart (1972a) notes the unique shape of the mesosoma, and mentions, ���elle sera red��crite en d��tail dans une autre note��� (pg. 28), but it appears that he never did publish another note on the species. His writing indicates that he viewed Kieffer���s type specimens, but does not mention where he viewed them (Dessart, 1972a). The location of the specimens is currently unknown, and we were not able to verify the identity of the species or confirm its presence in the Nearctic. We consider Conostigmus subinermis as only a Palearctic species at this time., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on page 86, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Kieffer, J. J. (1907) Proctotrypidae (suite). Species Hymenopteres d'Europe & d'Algerie, 10, 1 - 144. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24299","Johnson, N. F. & Musetti, L. (2004) Catalog of the systematic literature of the superfamily Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera). Contributions of the American Entomological Institution, 33, 1 - 149.","Dessart, P. (1972 a) Contribution a la revision du genre Megaspilus Westwood, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ceraphronoidea Megaspilidae). Bulletin of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, 48, 1 - 55."]}

Conostigmus muesebecki Dessart & Masner 1965 Fig. 31 Species Comments and History. Dessart and Masner (1965) described this species from a holotype female, allotype male, and multiple paratypes (6 males and 22 females from different collecting events), all present at the USNM. This species was originally described as the type species of a new genus, Ecnomothorax (Dessart and Masner, 1965), which was later synonymized with Conostigmus by Dessart and Cancemi (1987). Dessart dissected the allotype male and made a slide preparation of the male genitalia, deposited in the USNM. However, this male genitalia preparation is in such poor condition that it is not possible to verify any characters from it. We were not able to dissect any of the other paratype males present at the USNM or locate any other males to dissect for this revision. From illustrations of the male genitalia provided in Dessart and Masner (1965), this species appears to have the following characters: medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle–volsella complex absent (parossiculi independent, not fused); 1 apical parossicular seta; proximal end of the dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle–volsella complex shape blunt, without a dorsomedian projection; harpe shorter than the gonostipes in lateral view; 2 gonossicular spines, potentially with an additional dorsal apodeme below the second spine; and one gonossicular spine more than 2× as long as the other(s). Variability. Other than slight intraspecific variations in color and size between specimens, we did not note any substantial variations. Differences Between Males and Females. Other than genitalia differences and sexual dimorphism in the antennae, there are no obvious differences between males and females. Diagnosis. This species is easily distinguished by the reduced wings (brachypterous), the absence of the median mesoscutal sulcus, and the presence of an enlarged pronotum (pronotum longer than the mesoscutum along the midline). Similar Nearctic species include C. dimidiatus, which can have the median mesoscutal sulcus absent or present, but does not have an enlarged pronotum. There are no other species in the Nearctic with an enlarged pronotum beside C. muesebecki —the only other known Conostigmus species in the world with this character is C. grangeri, known only from Morocco. Conostigmus grangeri differs from C. muesebecki in size (C. grangeri is larger), coloration (C. grangeri has a two-toned body, whereas C. muesebecki has uniform body coloration), presence and length of the preoccipital furrow (preoccipital furrow ends at the site of the postocellar carina in C. muesebecki; preoccipital furrow absent or ending posterior to the ocellar triangle in C. grangeri) and male genitalia characters (compare Fig. 18 and 19 with Fig. 22 and 23 in Dessart and Masner, 1965). Description. Note: Because we were unable to dissect any male specimens for observation, we have omitted scorings for male genitalia characters in the redescription below. The measurements given below were taken from two female specimens, PSUC_ FEM 66226 (TAMU) and CMNHENT0022724 (CLEV) respectively. Body length: 1.2 mm, 1.2 mm. Color hue pattern in male: cranium, metasoma, flagellomeres brown to black; anterior half of mesosoma yellow to light brown; posterior half of mesosoma light brown to brown; legs, scape, pedicel ochre to light brown. Color intensity pattern in male: anterior half of mesosoma lighter than posterior half of mesosoma; flagellomeres darker than scape and pedicel. Color hue pattern female: cranium, mesosoma, metasoma, scape yellow to light brown; coxae and legs white to ochre; pedicel white to ochre; flagellomeres white to brown. Color intensity pattern female: pedicel, F1, F2 lighter than F6–F9; flagellomeres gradually darkening towards the apex; anterior half of metasoma lighter than posterior half of metasoma; anterior half of mesosoma lighter than posterior half of mesosoma. Color intensity dorsal and ventral to the site of the sternaulus: concolorous. Color intensity pattern of syntergite: petiole neck and anterior region of syntergite lighter in coloration than the posterior region of the syntergite. Foveolate sculpture on body count: absent. Rugose sculpturing count: absent. Rugose region on upper face count: absent. Antennae: Longest male flagellomere: F9. Female scape length vs. pedicel length: 3.13, 3.25. Female scape length vs. F1 length: 3.57, 4.33. Female F1 length vs. F2 length: 1.75, 1.50. Female F1 length vs. pedicel length: 0.88, 0.75. Longest female flagellomere: F9. Length of setae on male flagellomere vs. male flagellomere width: setae shorter than width of flagellomeres. Head: Head width, dorsal view: at least 1.5× wider than mesosoma. Head height (HH, lateral view) vs. eye height (EHf, anterior view): HH:EHf=1.71, 1.81. Head height (HH) vs. head length (HL): HH:HL=1.26, 1.32. Head width (HW) vs. interorbital space (IOS): HW:IOS=1.75, 1.68. Head width (HW) vs. head height (HH): HW: HH=1.17, 1.10. Cephalic size (csb): Mean: 260 μm, 305 μm. Maximum eye diameter vs. minimum eye diameter: 1.56, 1.55. POL:OOL: POL equal to or shorter than OOL and ocellar triangle with short base. Female ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. lateral ocellar line (LOL): OOL:LOL=3.0, 1.5. Head shape (anterior view): circular or triangular. Preoccipital lunula count: absent. Preoccipital carina count: absent. Occipital carina structure: occipital carina not complete. Occipital carina sculpture: crenulate. Preoccipital furrow count: present. Preoccipital furrow anterior end: preoccipital furrow ends at site of postocellar carina. Postocellar carina count: present. Dorsal margin of occipital carina vs. dorsal margin of lateral ocellus in lateral view: occipital carina ventral to lateral ocellus in lateral view. Transverse scutes on upper face count: absent. Transverse frontal carina count: absent. Randomly sized areolae around setal pits on upper face count: absent. Setal pit on vertex size: smaller than diameter of scutes. Ventromedian setiferous patch and ventrolateral setiferous patch count: absent. White, thick setae on upper face count: absent. Antennal scrobe count: absent. Facial structure count: facial pit present. Facial pit count: present. Facial sulcus count: absent. Median facial keel count: absent. Supraclypeal depression count: present. Supraclypeal depression structure: present medially, inverted U-shaped. Intertorular area count: present. Intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina shape: acute. Median process of intertorular carina structure: process extends across intertorular area towards dorsal margin of clypeus. Median region of intertorular area shape: convex. Ventral margin of antennal rim vs. dorsal margin of clypeus: not adjacent. Torulo–clypeal carina count: present. Subtorular carina count: absent. Mandibular tooth count: 2. Mandibular lancea count: absent. Mesosoma: Anterior mesoscutal width (AscW) vs. posterior mesoscutal width (PscW): AscW/PscW=0.38, 0.40. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. anterior mesoscutal width (AscW): MscL/AscW=2.0, 1.75. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. mesoscutellar length (MscIL): MscL:MscIL= 0.67, 0.58. Wing count: absent. Fore wing size: wings reduced or brachypterous with apex never extending past scutellum. Pronotum median length: greater than longest median anatomical line of the mesoscutum. Notaulus count: present. Crenulae of notaulus width: width of the crenulae does not increase more than 2× anteriorly. Median mesoscutal sulcus count: absent. Axillular carinae count: absent. Speculum ventral limit: not extending ventrally of pleural pit line. Metapleural sulcus shape: straight. Mesometapleural sulcus count: present. Ventrolateral invagination of the pronotum count: present. Sternaulus count: absent. Epicnemial carina count: complete. Epicnemium posterior margin shape: anterior discrimenal pit present; epicnemial carina curved. Transverse striations on the ventral metapleural area count: absent. Scutes on posterior region of mesoscutum and dorsal region of mesoscutellum convexity: flat. Ventral projection of the metapleural carina count: absent. Lateral propodeal carina count: present. Lateral propodeal carina shape: inverted “U” (left and right lateral propodeal carina are adjacent to the antecostal sulcus of the first abdominal tergum submedially). Mesopostscutellum count: absent (scutellum flat). Anteromedian projection of the metanoto–propodeo–metapecto–mesopectal complex count: absent. Paired blue iridescent ovoid patches on the syntergite count: absent. Distribution. Nearctic. Material Examined. Holotype female: USA: Arkansas: USNMENT01339792 (USNM). Paratypes (22 females, 8 males): USA: Arkansas: 11 females, 2 males. USNMENT 01212943, 01212976, 01212978 - 01212980, 01212982, 01212983, 01212986 – 01212990, 01212992 (USNM). USA: Missouri: 11 females, 6 males. USNMENT 01212941, 01212945 – 01212947, 01212949, 01212951, 01212955, 01212957, 01212959, 01212975, 01212977, 01212981, 01212984, 01212985, 01212991, 01212993, 01212994 (USNM). Non-type material (2 females): USA: South Carolina: 1 female. CMNHENT0022724 (CLEV). USA: Texas: 1 female. PSUC _ FEM 66226 (TAMU).

We revise the species of Conostigmus Dahlbom, 1858 (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae) found in North America, north of Mexico. We describe the following 12 new species: Conostigmus dessarti Trietsch & Mikó sp. nov.; C. duncani Trietsch sp. nov.; C. franzinii Trietsch & Mikó sp. nov.; C. johnsoni Trietsch & Mikó sp. nov.; C. lepus Trietsch sp. nov.; C. longiharpes Trietsch sp. nov.; C. michaeli Trietsch sp. nov.; C. minimus Trietsch & Mikó sp. nov.; C. muratorei Trietsch sp. nov.; C. musettiae Trietsch & Mikó sp. nov.; C. rosemaryae Trietsch sp. nov.; and C. washburni Trietsch sp. nov. We also redescribe the following 12 species: Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832); C. bipunctatus Kieffer, 1907; C. dimidiatus (Thomson, 1858); C. erythrothorax (Ashmead, 1893); C. laeviceps (Ashmead, 1893); C. muesebecki Dessart & Masner, 1965; C. nigrorufus Dessart, 1997; C. obscurus (Thomson, 1858); C. orcasensis (Brues, 1909); C. pulchellus Whittaker, 1930; C. quadratogenalis Dessart & Cooper, 1975; and C. triangularis (Thomson, 1858). We report specimens of C. abdominalis (Boheman, 1832) and C. bipunctatus Kieffer, 1907 from the Nearctic for the first time, expanding the range from Palearctic to Holarctic for both species. We regard the following 19 species as having uncertain status due to reasons such as missing type specimens: Conostigmus ambiguus (Ashmead, 1893); C. bacilliger (Kieffer, 1906); C. bakeri Kieffer, 1908; C. californicus (Ashmead, 1893); C. canadensis (Ashmead,1888); C. crawfordi (Mann, 1920); C. harringtoni (Ashmead, 1888); C. hyalinipennis (Ashmead, 1887); C. inermis (Kieffer, 1906); C. integriceps (Kieffer, 1906); C. marylandicus (Ashmead, 1893); C. nevadensis (Kieffer, 1906); C. nigripes (Kieffer, 1906); C. ottawensis (Ashmead, 1888); C. pergandei (Ashmead, 1893); C. popenoei (Ashmead, 1893); C. rufoniger (Provancher, 1888); C. schwarzi (Ashmead, 1893); and C. trapezoidus Kieffer, 1908. We transfer Conostigmus arietinus (Provancher, 1887) to Dendrocerus Ratzeburg, 1852, and consider Conostigmus subinermis (Kieffer, 1907) to be absent from the Nearctic and limited to the Palearctic. The Nearctic species C. timberlakei Kamal, 1926 remains incertae sedis. We provide the name Conostigmus fulgidus Mikό and Trietsch to replace the junior homonym Conostigmus lucidus Mikό and Trietsch 2016. We provide a key for the identification of Nearctic Conostigmus species, and provide comments on their natural history. Finally, we infer evolutionary relationships within Megaspilinae using male genitalia and other morphological characters. This work represents the first in-depth study and revision of Conostigmus in North America, and contributes the first annotated identification key to Nearctic Conostigmus species.

Conostigmus washburni Trietsch sp. nov. Figs. 81, 82, 83 Diagnosis. This Nearctic species can be recognized by the following combination of characters: facial pit present; occipital carina not complete; median process on the intertorular carina absent; postocellar carina absent; preoccipital lunula present; preoccipital furrow present and crenulate; sternaulus absent; wings present and macropterous; crenulae width of the notaulus increasing more than 2�� anteriorly; medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex present (parossiculi independent); and proximal end of the dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex shape acute. The female of this species is unknown. C. washburni has similar male genitalia to C. erythrothorax and C. michaeli, but this species can be differentiated from the others by the presence of the preoccipital lunula (absent in C. michaeli and C. erythrothorax), and the presence and sculpturing of the preoccipital furrow. The preoccipital furrow is always present and has crenulate sculpturing in C. washburni. In C. michaeli and C. erythrothorax, the preoccipital furrow can be present or absent, but if present, it appears only as a faint impression and is never crenulate. This species can also resemble C. muratorei due to the width of the crenulae of the notauli increasing more than 2�� anteriorly, as well as the absence of the postocellar carina and sternaulus, but they are easily distinguished by the presence of the mesopostscutellum (present in C. muratorei and absent in C. washburni), the presence and shape of the median process on the intertorular carina (absent in C. washburni, present and acute in C. muratorei), and the male genitalia. Conostigmus muratorei has the dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex present and bilobed, while C. washburni does not have the dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex. Variability. There are variations in color, with some specimens being darker (PSUC_ FEM 34197, PSUC_ FEM 33185) than others (PSUC_ FEM 34114, PSUC_ FEM 34135), and some specimens having lighter coloration ventral to the site of the sternaulus (PSUC_ FEM 34135, PSUC_ FEM 34048) while others do not (PSUC_ FEM 34142, PSUC_ FEM 34240). The facial pit is always present, but it can be difficult to see on darker specimens (PSUC_ FEM 34197, PSUC_ FEM 33185). Description. Body length: 1.125 ���1.725 mm. Color hue pattern in male: cranium, mesosoma and metasoma brown to black; mandible and legs ochre to light brown; pedicel, scape, F1���F9 brown to dark brown; mesosoma sometimes with lighter coloration ventral to site of sternaulus. Color intensity pattern in male: mandible lighter than cranium; area ventral to the site of the sternaulus lighter than the area dorsal to the site of the sternaulus on some specimens. Color intensity dorsal and ventral to the site of the sternaulus: area ventral to the site of the sternaulus lighter than the area dorsal to the site of the sternaulus. Color intensity pattern of syntergite: petiole neck and anterior region of syntergite concolorus with the posterior region of the syntergite. Foveolate sculpture on body count: absent. Rugose sculpturing count: absent. Rugose region on upper face count: absent. Antennae: Male scape length vs. pedicel length: 2.6���4.5. Male scape length vs. F1 length: 1.3���1.5. Male F1 length vs. pedicel length: 1.8���3.4. Male F1 length vs. male F2 length: 1.1���1.2. Longest male flagellomere: F1. Length of setae on male flagellomere vs. male flagellomere width: setae as long as or shorter than width of flagellomeres. Sensillar patch of the male flagellomere pattern: F6���F9. Head: Head width, dorsal view: equal to or only slightly wider than mesosoma (less than 1.3�� wider than mesosoma). Head height (HH, lateral view) vs. eye height (EHf, anterior view): HH:EHf=1.3���1.7. Head height (HH) vs. head length (HL): HH:HL=1.1���1.4. Head width (HW) vs. interorbital space (IOS): HW:IOS=1.6���2.1. Head width (HW) vs. head height (HH): HW:HH=1.2���1.5. Cephalic size (csb): Mean: 265���420 ��m. Maximum eye diameter vs. minimum eye diameter: 1.2���1.4. POL:OOL: POL equal to or shorter than OOL and ocellar triangle with short base. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. lateral ocellar line (LOL): OOL:LOL=1.5���1.8. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. posterior ocellar line (POL): OOL:POL=0.8���1.0. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL): posterior ocellar line (POL): lateral ocellar line (LOL): 1.5���1.8:1.5���1.8:1.0. Head shape (anterior view): circular or triangular. Preoccipital lunula count: present. Preoccipital carina count: absent. Occipital carina structure: occipital carina not complete. Occipital carina sculpture: crenulate. Preoccipital furrow count: present. Preoccipital furrow anterior end: preoccipital furrow ends inside ocellar triangle, but ends posterior to the anterior ocellus; preoccipital furrow ends at site of postocellar carina. Preoccipital furrow sculpture: crenulate. Postocellar carina count: absent. Dorsal margin of occipital carina vs. dorsal margin of lateral ocellus in lateral view: occipital carina ventral to lateral ocellus in lateral view. Transverse scutes on upper face count: absent. Transverse frontal carina count: absent. Randomly sized areolae around setal pits on upper face count: absent. Setal pit on vertex size: smaller than diameter of scutes. Ventromedian setiferous patch and ventrolateral setiferous patch count: absent. White, thick setae on upper face count: absent. Antennal scrobe count: absent. Facial structure count: facial pit present, but can be difficult to see on darker specimens. Facial pit count: present but can be difficult to see on darker specimens. Facial sulcus count: absent. Median facial keel count: absent. Supraclypeal depression count: present. Supraclypeal depression structure: absent medially, represented by two grooves laterally of facial pit. Intertorular area count: present. Intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina count: absent. Median region of intertorular area shape: flat. Ventral margin of antennal rim vs. dorsal margin of clypeus: not adjacent. Torulo���clypeal carina count: present. Subtorular carina count: absent. Mandibular tooth count: 2. Mandibular lancea count: absent. Mesosoma: Weber length: WL=400���600 ��m. Anterior mesoscutal width (AscW) vs. posterior mesoscutal width (PscW): AscW/PscW=0.6���0.8. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. anterior mesoscutal width (AscW): MscL/ AscW=1.2���1.9. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. mesoscutellar length (MscIL): MscL:MscIL= 0.9���1.1. Wing count: present. Fore wing size: wings present and macropterous with apex extending past petiole. Pronotum median length: less than longest median anatomical line of the mesoscutum. Notaulus count: present. Crenulae of notaulus width: width of the crenulae increases more than 2�� anteriorly. Notaulus posterior end location: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Median mesoscutal sulcus count: present. Median mesoscutal sulcus posterior end: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Scutoscutellar sulcus vs. transscutal articulation location: adjacent. Axillular carinae count: absent. Speculum ventral limit: not extending ventrally of pleural pit line. Metapleural sulcus shape: straight. Mesometapleural sulcus count: present. Ventrolateral invagination of the pronotum count: present. Sternaulus count: absent. Sternaulus length: sternaulus absent. Epicnemial carina count: complete. Epicnemium posterior margin shape: anterior discrimenal pit present; epicnemial carina curved. Transverse striations on the ventral metapleural area count: absent. Scutes on posterior region of mesoscutum and dorsal region of mesoscutellum convexity: flat. Ventral projection of the metapleural carina count: present. Lateral propodeal carina count: present. Lateral propodeal carina shape: inverted ���Y��� (left and right lateral propodeal are adjacent medially posterior to antecostal sulcus of the first abdominal tergum, and connected to the antecostal sulcus by a median carina representing the median branch of the inverted ���Y���). Mesopostscutellum count: absent (scutellum flat). Anteromedian projection of the metanoto���propodeo���metapecto���mesopectal complex count: absent. Posterior margin of nucha in dorsal view shape: concave. Metasoma: Transverse carina on petiole shape: straight. Paired blue iridescent ovoid patches on the syntergite count: absent. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. syntergal translucent patch maximum width: 1.8���3.0. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: 2.1���2.6. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 1.2���1.7. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 1.4��� 2.0. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anterolaterally. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anterolaterally. Synsternal setiferous patch shape: linear, with a patch of setae lateral or posterior to the synsternal translucent patch. Synsternal setiferous patch structure: comprised of a single or double row of setae anterior and lateral to the synsternal translucent patch, with a patch of setae posterior to the synsternal translucent patch. Synsternal setiferous patch anterior end: synsternal setiferous patch begins anterior to the synsternal translucent patch anterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch posterior end: synsternal setiferous patch ends posterior to the synsternal translucent patch posterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch length vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: synsternal setiferous patch at least 2�� as long as the maximum width of the synsternal translucent patch. S1 length vs. shortest width: S1 wider than long. Male Genitalia: Distal margin of male S9 shape: straight. Proximolateral corner of male S9 shape: blunt. Male S9 distal setal line/setal patch count: distal setae composing transverse setiferous line or lines. Male S9 distal setal line / setal patch structure: single or double transverse row of distal setae. Distomedian hairless area interrupting transverse row of setae or patch on male S9 count: absent with distal setiferous patch/line continuous medially. Submedial projections on proximal margin of S9 count: absent. Cupula length vs. gonostyle���volsella complex length: cupula less than 1/2 the length of gonostyle���volsella complex in lateral view. Proximodorsal notch of cupula count: present. Proximodorsal notch of cupula shape: arched (inverted U-shape). Proximodorsal notch of cupula width vs length: wider than long. Proximolateral projection of the cupula shape: blunt. Gonocondyle count: present. Gonocondyle shape: acute. Distodorsal margin of cupula shape: concave. Distoventral submedian corner of the cupula count: absent. Dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: absent. Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: present. Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex length relative to length of gonostyle���volsella complex: dorsomedian conjunctiva extending greater than 1/3 of length of gonostyle���volsella complex in dorsal view. Dorsomedial margin of gonostyle���volsella complex shape: V-shaped. Proximal end of dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex shape: acute or V-shaped. Parossiculus count or parossiculus and gonostipes fusion: present and parossiculi not fused with the gonostipes. Medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count or fusion of parossiculi: medioventral conjunctiva present and parossiculi independent or fused proximally. Apical parossicular setae count: one. Distal projection of the parossiculus count: absent. Distal projection of the penisvalva count: absent. Gonossiculus spine count: 3. Gonossiculus spine length: one spine not more than 2�� as long as the other(s) (spines of similar lengths). Harpe length: harpe shorter than gonostipes in lateral view. Harpe shape: simple and not bilobed. Harpe orientation: medial. Lateral margin of harpe shape: widest point of harpe is at its articulation site with gonostyle���volsella complex. Distal margin of harpe in lateral view: acute or pointed. Lateral setae of harpe count: present. Lateral setae of harpe orientation: oriented distally. Lateral setae on harpe density: setae sparse. Dense patch of setae on the distoventral edge of the harpe count: absent. Distal setae on harpe length: setae not of equal length, longer setae present on distoventral edge of harpe. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe length vs. harpe width in lateral view: setae longer than harpe width. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe orientation: distomedially. Sensillar ring area of harpe orientation: distomedially. Sensillar ring shape: circular. Distoventral margin of harpe in lateral view: convex. Distribution. Nearctic. Etymology. This species is named washburni in memory of Major Kent G. Washburn: a veteran who served an extended tour of duty in Vietnam plus two combat tours in Korea; an officer who served for more than 20 years in the US Army Medical Service Corps; a lifelong student who earned Master���s degrees in education, hospital administration and military science following his military career; and a close family friend of the first author who passed away suddenly during the course of this research. Material Examined. Holotype male: USA: Arizona: PSUC _ FEM 34274, UCFC 207381 (UCFC). Paratypes (21 males): USA: Arizona: 21 males. PSUC _ FEM 32265, 36073 (PSUC); PSUC _ FEM 4278, 33147, 33185, 33195, 34048, 34081, 34086, 34114, 34117, 34120, 34135, 34142, 34197, 34201, 34220, 34240, 34280 (UCFC); UCFC 207086, 208184 (UNHC)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on pages 142-146, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976

Conostigmus bacilliger (Kieffer, 1906) Species Comments and History. Kieffer (1906) described this species from material collected from San Mateo, California, with the female unknown. According to Kieffer (1906), characteristics of this species include a black body with light brown legs, wings present and macropterous, notauli and median mesoscutal sulcus complete, and ���1. Glied kaum so lang wie die zwei folgenden mitsammen��� (pg. 258), which we interpret as the scape being barely as long as the pedicel and F1 together (the redescription provided in Kieffer (1914) specifies ���Scapus kaum so lang wie die 2 folgenden Glieder zusammen���, pg. 220). The key in Kieffer (1906) distinguishes this species from others by the ���2. F��hlerglied nicht halb so lang wie das 3.��� (pg. 258) and the ���analsegment mit zwei langen st��behenartigen Auh��ngseln��� (pg. 258), which we interpret as the harpe protruding from the metasoma. This is hardly a speciesspecific characteristic, though it may hint that this species has long harpe, like C. longiharpes, C. abdominalis or C. pulchellus. Kieffer (1914) repeats much of the original description, though the key adds that this species has ���Scheitel ohne Mittell��ngefurche��� (pg. 170), as opposed to ���Scheitel mit einer Mittell��ngefurche hinter den ocellen��� (pg. 170), which we interpret as the species lacking a preoccipital furrow. This would distinguish it from C. longiharpes, C. abdominalis and C. pulchellus, which all have a preoccipital furrow. The location of Kieffer���s type material is unknown, and the characters given in the original description could apply to several different species of Conostigmus. We consider Conostigmus bacilliger as a species inquirenda., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on pages 24-25, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Kieffer, J. J. (1906) Beschreibung neuer Proctotrypiden aus Nord- und Zentralamerika. Berliner Entomolologische Zeitschrift, 50, 237 - 290. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / mmnd. 47919060305","Kieffer, J. J. (1914) Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich, 42. lfg. R. Friedlander und sohn., Berlin, 254 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219"]}

Conostigmus hyalinipennis (Ashmead, 1887) Species Comments and History. Ashmead (1887) described this species from a single female specimen collected in Florida. The specimen was described as having a black body, light brown legs, a large but pale stigma with a long radial vein, filiform antennae with ���first two joints rather short, third and following joints much longer��� (pg. 98), and hyaline wings (Ashmead, 1887). This is presumably the characteristic for which the specimen was named, but this feature is common among Conostigmus. Ashmead (1893) later redescribed the species and keyed it out with other Conostigmus, specifying that it was macropterous with the face ���closely punctate or shagreened��� (pg. 113). The location and identity of Ashmead���s original specimen are unknown, and the characters given in the original description could apply to several different species. We consider Conostigmus hyalinipennis as a species inquirenda until Ashmead���s original specimen can be located and studied., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on page 48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Ashmead, W. H. (1887) Studies on the North American Proctotrupidae, with descriptions of new species from Florida. Entomologica Americana, 3, 73 - 119.","Ashmead, W. H. (1893) A monograph of the North American Proctotrypidae. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 45, 1 - 472. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.45.1"]}

Conostigmus timberlakei Kamal, 1926 Species Comments and History. Kamal (1926) described this species from 3 female specimens reared from syrphid puparia collected in California near San Diego. Kamal (1926) described 3 other new species in the same publication, but while Kamal specifies that the types of the other 3 species are deposited in the USNM, no repository is given for the specimens of C. timberlakei. Dessart (1974) commented that the types were probably in Kamal���s personal collection (���Est inconnu-- probablement dans la collection personnelle du descriptor���, pg. 444). We confirmed that the specimens were not at the USNM during an October 2017 visit. Because Kamal did his PhD at the University of California, Riverside, we contacted their department and other insect collections in California, as well as collections in Egypt (where Kamal returned after his PhD) but were unable to track down the specimens. Based on illustrations published of the specimens in Kamal (1939), Dessart (1974) believes this species is a member of the genus Dendrocerus. However, without any specimens to examine and confirm this, Dessart (1974) declared the species incertae sedis. With our attempts to track down the type specimens unsuccessful, this species must remain incertae sedis for now., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on page 86, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Kamal, M. (1926) Four new species of parasites from aphidiophagous Syrphidae (Hymenoptera). Canadian Entomology, 58, 283 - 286. https: // doi. org / 10.4039 / Ent 58283 - 11","Dessart, P. (1974) Les megaspilides europeens [Hym. Ceraphronoidea] parasites des dipteres syrphides avec une revision du genre Trichosteresis. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France, New Series, 10, 395 - 448.","Kamal, M. (1939) Biological studies on some Hymenopterous parasites of aphidophagous Syrphidae. Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture of Egypt, Entomology Section, 207, 1 - 111."]}

Conostigmus longiharpes Trietsch sp. nov. Figs. 65, 66, 67 Diagnosis. Males of this species are distinguished by the following combination of characters: facial sulcus absent; preoccipital furrow absent; sternaulus absent; shortest width of petiole neck vs. syntergal translucent patch maximum width: 3.0���4.0; shortest width of petiole neck vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: 3.0���4.5; parossiculi not fused; and length of the harpe equal to or longer than the length of the gonostipes in lateral view. The female of this species is unknown. This species is unique in that it has very small syntergal and synsternal translucent patches; the ratios of the shortest width of the petiole neck vs. the syntergal and the synsternal translucent patch maximum widths are both greater than 3.0. The only other species with these two ratios greater than 3.0 is C. orcasensis, which differs from C. longiharpes in that the mesopostscutellum is present and the width of the crenulae of the notauli increases more than 2�� anteriorly. This species is also one of the few Conostigmus with the length of the harpe equal to or longer than the length of the gonostipes in lateral view. The male genitalia are very similar to a Palearctic species, C. difformis (Boheman), 1832, which Dessart (1993) redescribed and illustrated after viewing the types in Lund (this information missing from Johnson and Musetti, 2004). However, these are not the same species because C. difformis has a facial suture, whereas C. longiharpes does not. Conostigmus difformis is also only known from the Palearctic, whereas C. longiharpes is only known from the Nearctic. The only other two species that occur in the Nearctic and have long harpe are C. abdominalis and C. pulchellus, but both of these species also have a facial suture, postocellar carina, and elongate sternaulus, which are all absent in C. longiharpes. The Nearctic species most similar to C. longiharpes is C. nigrorufus, which shares the absence of the sternaulus. However, the syntergal and synsternal translucent patches are much smaller in C. longiharpes than in C. nigrorufus. There are also similarities in the male genitalia of both species, including the following characters: one apical parossicular seta; proximodorsal notch of the cupula present and arched (inverted U-shape); medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex present (parossiculi not fused); harpe simple (not bilobed); and the dorsomedial margin of gonostyle���volsella complex V-shaped. However, upon looking laterally, it is easy to distinguish the male genitalia by the length of the harpe, which are shorter than the length of the gonostipes in C. nigrorufus but equal to or longer than the length of the gonostipes in C. longiharpes. Variability. There is variability in the preoccipital lunula based on specimen size. The preoccipital lunula is present on larger specimens (PSUC_ FEM 36108, PSUC_ FEM 36092) and small or absent on smaller specimens (PSUC_ FEM 88192, PSUC_ FEM 36051, UCRC_ENT 00457092). There are also slight variations in color between specimens, with some specimens having lighter brown or yellow coloration on the petiole or pronotum. Description. Body length: 1.275 ���1.550 mm. Color hue pattern in male: cranium, mesosoma and metasoma brown to dark brown; mandible, legs, pedicel and scape ochre to light brown; F1���F9 light brown to brown. Color intensity pattern in male: cranium darker than mesosoma, flagellomeres darker than legs; mandible lighter than cranium; pronotum sometimes lighter than rest of mesosoma; petiole neck sometimes lighter than rest of metasoma. Color intensity dorsal and ventral to the site of the sternaulus: concolorous. Color intensity pattern of syntergite: petiole neck and anterior region of syntergite concolorus with the posterior region of the syntergite; petiole neck and anterior region of syntergite lighter in coloration than the posterior region of the syntergite. Foveolate sculpture on body count: absent. Rugose sculpturing count: absent. Rugose region on upper face count: absent. Antennae: Male scape length vs. pedicel length: 3.2���5.0. Male scape length vs. F1 length: 1.4���1.9. Male F1 length vs. pedicel length: 2.2���3.0. Male F1 length vs. male F2 length: 1.2���1.4. Longest male flagellomere: F1. Length of setae on male flagellomere vs. male flagellomere width: setae shorter than width of flagellomeres. Sensillar patch of the male flagellomere pattern: F6���F9. Head: Head width, dorsal view: equal to or only slightly wider than mesosoma (less than 1.3�� wider than mesosoma). Head height (HH, lateral view) vs. eye height (EHf, anterior view): HH:EHf=1.3���1.7. Head height (HH) vs. head length (HL): HH:HL=1.1���1.3. Head width (HW) vs. interorbital space (IOS): HW:IOS=1.8���2.0. Head width (HW) vs. head height (HH): HW:HH=1.2���1.4. Cephalic size (csb): Mean: 300���450 ��m. Maximum eye diameter vs. minimum eye diameter: 1.2���1.5. POL:OOL: POL equal to or shorter than OOL and ocellar triangle with short base. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. lateral ocellar line (LOL): OOL:LOL=2.0���2.7. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. posterior ocellar line (POL): OOL:POL=1.1���1.4. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL): posterior ocellar line (POL): lateral ocellar line (LOL): 2.0���2.7:1.6���2.4:1.0. Head shape (anterior view): circular or triangular. Preoccipital lunula count: absent; present. Preoccipital carina count: absent. Occipital carina structure: occipital carina not complete. Occipital carina sculpture: crenulate. Preoccipital furrow count: present. Preoccipital furrow anterior end: preoccipital furrow ends posterior to ocellar triangle. Preoccipital furrow sculpture: crenulate. Postocellar carina count: absent. Dorsal margin of occipital carina vs. dorsal margin of lateral ocellus in lateral view: occipital carina ventral to lateral ocellus in lateral view. Transverse scutes on upper face count: absent. Transverse frontal carina count: absent. Randomly sized areolae around setal pits on upper face count: absent. Setal pit on vertex size: smaller than diameter of scutes. Ventromedian setiferous patch and ventrolateral setiferous patch count: absent. White, thick setae on upper face count: absent. Antennal scrobe count: absent. Facial structure count: facial pit present. Facial pit count: present. Facial sulcus count: absent. Median facial keel count: absent. Supraclypeal depression count: present. Supraclypeal depression structure: present medially, inverted U-shaped. Intertorular area count: present. Intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina shape: blunt. Median region of intertorular area shape: convex. Ventral margin of antennal rim vs. dorsal margin of clypeus: not adjacent. Torulo���clypeal carina count: present. Subtorular carina count: absent. Mandibular tooth count: 2. Mandibular lancea count: absent. Mesosoma: Weber length: WL=400���650 ��m. Anterior mesoscutal width (AscW) vs. posterior mesoscutal width (PscW): AscW/PscW=0.7���0.8. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. anterior mesoscutal width (AscW): MscL/ AscW=1.2���1.6. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. mesoscutellar length (MscIL): MscL:MscIL= 0.8���1.0. Wing count: present. Fore wing size: wings present and macropterous with apex extending past petiole. Pronotum median length: less than longest median anatomical line of the mesoscutum. Notaulus count: present. Crenulae of notaulus width: width of the crenulae does not increase more than 2�� anteriorly. Notaulus posterior end location: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Posterior region of notaulus orientation: posterior end of notaulus curves and is adjacent to median mesoscutal sulcus. Median mesoscutal sulcus count: present. Median mesoscutal sulcus posterior end: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Scutoscutellar sulcus vs. transscutal articulation location: adjacent. Axillular carinae count: absent. Speculum ventral limit: not extending ventrally of pleural pit line. Metapleural sulcus shape: straight. Mesometapleural sulcus count: present. Ventrolateral invagination of the pronotum count: present. Sternaulus count: absent. Sternaulus length: sternaulus absent. Epicnemial carina count: complete. Epicnemium posterior margin shape: anterior discrimenal pit present; epicnemial carina curved. Transverse striations on the ventral metapleural area count: absent. Scutes on posterior region of mesoscutum and dorsal region of mesoscutellum convexity: flat. Ventral projection of the metapleural carina count: absent. Lateral propodeal carina count: present. Lateral propodeal carina shape: inverted ���V��� (left and right lateral propodeal carinae are adjacent medially at their intersection with antecostal sulcus of the first abdominal tergum). Mesopostscutellum count: absent (scutellum flat). Anteromedian projection of the metanoto���propodeo���metapecto���mesopectal complex count: absent. Posterior margin of nucha in dorsal view shape: concave. Metasoma: Transverse carina on petiole shape: straight. Paired blue iridescent ovoid patches on the syntergite count: absent. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. syntergal translucent patch maximum width: 3.0���4.0. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: 3.0���4.5. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 1.1���1.7. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 1.3���2.5. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anterolaterally. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anterior���posteriorly. Synsternal setiferous patch shape: linear. Synsternal setiferous patch structure: comprised of a single row of setae anterior and posterior to the synsternal translucent patch. Synsternal setiferous patch anterior end: synsternal setiferous patch begins anterior to the synsternal translucent patch anterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch posterior end: synsternal setiferous patch ends lateral to the synsternal translucent patch posterior margin; synsternal setiferous patch ends posterior to the synsternal translucent patch posterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch length vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: synsternal setiferous patch at least 2�� as long as the maximum width of the synsternal translucent patch. S1 length vs. shortest width: S1 wider than long. Male Genitalia: Distal margin of male S9 shape: convex. Proximolateral corner of male S9 shape: blunt. Male S9 distal setal line/setal patch count: distal setae composing transverse setiferous line or lines. Male S9 distal setal line / setal patch structure: 2 or more transverse rows of setae with additional setae scattered between them. Distomedian hairless area interrupting transverse row of setae or patch on male S9 count: absent with distal setiferous patch/line continuous medially. Submedial projections on proximal margin of S9 count: absent. Cupula length vs. gonostyle���volsella complex length: cupula less than 1/2 the length of gonostyle���volsella complex in lateral view. Proximodorsal notch of cupula count: present. Proximodorsal notch of cupula shape: arched (inverted U-shape). Proximodorsal notch of cupula width vs length: wider than long. Proximolateral projection of the cupula shape: blunt. Gonocondyle count: present. Gonocondyle shape: blunt. Distodorsal margin of cupula shape: concave. Distoventral submedian corner of the cupula count: absent. Dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: absent. Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: present. Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex length relative to length of gonostyle���volsella complex: dorsomedian conjunctiva extending more than or equal to 2/3 of length of gonostyle���volsella complex in dorsal view. Dorsomedial margin of gonostyle���volsella complex shape: V-shaped. Proximal end of dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex shape: acute or V-shaped. Parossiculus count or parossiculus and gonostipes fusion: present and parossiculi not fused with the gonostipes. Medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count or fusion of parossiculi: medioventral conjunctiva present and parossiculi independent or fused proximally. Apical parossicular setae count: one. Distal projection of the parossiculus count: absent. Distal projection of the penisvalva count: absent. Gonossiculus spine count: 3. Gonossiculus spine length: one spine not more than 2�� as long as the other(s) (spines of similar lengths). Harpe length: harpe equal to or longer than gonostipes in lateral view. Harpe shape: simple and not bilobed. Harpe orientation: medial. Lateral margin of harpe shape: widest point of harpe is at its articulation site with gonostyle���volsella complex. Distal margin of harpe in lateral view: acute or pointed. Lateral setae of harpe count: present. Lateral setae of harpe orientation: oriented distally. Lateral setae on harpe density: setae sparse. Dense patch of setae on the distoventral edge of the harpe count: absent. Distal setae on harpe length: setae of equal length across distal end of harpe. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe length vs. harpe width in lateral view: setae longer than harpe width. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe orientation: distomedially. Sensillar ring area of harpe orientation: medially. Sensillar ring shape: circular. Distoventral margin of harpe in lateral view: convex. Distribution. Nearctic. Etymology. This species is named longiharpes after the harpe, which are longer than the gonostipes in lateral view. This is a character that is only shared by three other species, C. abdominalis, C. difformis and C. pulchellus, which are all easily differentiated from this species by the presence of the facial sulcus (absent in C. longiharpes). Material Examined. Holotype male: USA: California: PSUC _ FEM 88145, UCRC _ ENT 00103685 (UCRC). Paratypes (15 males): USA: California: 15 males. PSUC _ FEM 26681, 26707, 26709, 26848, 27056, 27198 (OSUC); PSUC _ FEM 36051, 36092, 36108, 36113, 88187, 88188, 88192, 92182; UCRC _ ENT 00457092 (UCRC)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on pages 117-122, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Dessart, P. (1993) Un Conostigmus et un Ceraphron a antennes teratologiques (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea). Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie, 63, 51 - 58.","Johnson, N. F. & Musetti, L. (2004) Catalog of the systematic literature of the superfamily Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera). Contributions of the American Entomological Institution, 33, 1 - 149."]}

Conostigmus integriceps (Kieffer, 1906) Species Comments and History. Kieffer (1906) described this species from a female specimen or specimens collected from San Mateo, California, with the male unknown. Kieffer later transferred the species to the genus Conostigmus (1909). According to Kieffer (1906), the female of this species was macropterous and had a black body with dark brown antennae and yellowish legs. Kieffer (1906) distinguished this species from the female of C. nevadensis in that it has ���Scheitel ohne L��ngsfurche��� (pg. 258), which we interpret as the absence of the postocellar carina, and ���Stirueindruck nicht bis zur H��lfte der Augen reichend��� (pg. 258), which could indicate either a short preoccipital furrow (not reaching the ocellar triangle) or a short facial sulcus (not reaching half the length of the compound eye). Kieffer (1914) repeats these characters in the description, and in the key to species distinguishes it from the female of C. schwarzi by the ���Das 2. Antennenglied gelraun, l��nger als das 3., scutellum fein lederartig��� (pg. 178). The characters given in Kieffer���s description could apply to several different species of Conostigmus, and the location of Kieffer���s type specimen or specimen series is unknown. We consider Conostigmus integriceps as a species inquirenda., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on page 49, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Kieffer, J. J. (1906) Beschreibung neuer Proctotrypiden aus Nord- und Zentralamerika. Berliner Entomolologische Zeitschrift, 50, 237 - 290. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / mmnd. 47919060305","Kieffer, J. J. (1914) Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich, 42. lfg. R. Friedlander und sohn., Berlin, 254 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219"]}

Conostigmus rosemaryae Trietsch sp. nov. Figs. 78, 79, 80 Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other species of Conostigmus by the following combination of characters: facial sulcus present; sternaulus present and elongate, exceeding 1/2 of the mesopleuron length at the level of the sternaulus; dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex present; harpe not spatulate or spoon-shaped; and harpe shorter than the gonostipes in lateral view. This species is most similar to C. pulchellus and C. abdominalis, but is distinguishable from both by the male genitalia. Conostigmus rosemaryae has the dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex present, harpe that are shorter than the gonostipes in lateral view and harpe that are not spoon-shaped or spatulate. Conostigmus rosemaryae also has 1 apical parossicular seta, whereas C. pulchellus has 4 or more (C. abdominalis can have 1���3). Variability. The sternaulus is elongate in all specimens, but in some it exceeds 3/4 of the mesopleuron length at the level of the sternaulus (CMNHENT0022801, CMNHENT0022798) whereas in others it reaches between 1/2 and 3/4 of the mesopleuron length at the level of the sternaulus (CMNHENT0022821, CMNHENT0022771). The median process on the intertorular carina is present and acute in all specimens, but extends towards the dorsal margin of the clypeus in some (CMNHENT0022821, CMNHENT0022801) and not in others (PSUC_FEM 9042). There is also variation in the POL to OOL ratio, with POL equal to or shorter than OOL (ocellar triangle with short base) in most specimens, but POL longer than OOL (ocellar triangle with a wide base) in one specimen (PSUC_ FEM 9042). Description. Color hue pattern in male: cranium, mesosoma, metasoma brown to black except pronotum; pronotum light brown to black; F1���F9 brown to dark brown; scape, pedicel ochre to brown; legs ochre to brown. Color intensity pattern in male: metasoma and mandible lighter than mesosoma; flagellomeres and pedicel darker than scape; pronotum sometimes lighter than rest of mesosoma. Color intensity dorsal and ventral to the site of the sternaulus: concolorous. Color intensity pattern of syntergite: petiole neck and anterior region of syntergite concolorus with the posterior region of the syntergite. Foveolate sculpture on body count: absent. Rugose sculpturing count: present on head. Rugose region on upper face count: present. Antennae: Male scape length vs. pedicel length: 3.6���6.4. Male scape length vs. F1 length: 0.8���1.2. Male F1 length vs. pedicel length: 3.6���6.5. Male F1 length vs. male F2 length: 1.3���1.5. Longest male flagellomere: F1. Length of setae on male flagellomere vs. male flagellomere width: setae shorter than width of flagellomeres. Sensillar patch of the male flagellomere pattern: F5���F9. Head: Head width, dorsal view: equal to or only slightly wider than mesosoma (less than 1.3�� wider than mesosoma). Head height (HH, lateral view) vs. eye height (EHf, anterior view): HH:EHf=1.4���1.8. Head height (HH) vs. head length (HL): HH:HL=1.1���1.3. Head width (HW) vs. interorbital space (IOS): HW:IOS=1.7���1.9. Head width (HW) vs. head height (HH): HW:HH=1.3���1.6. Cephalic size (csb): Mean: 450���650 ��m. Maximum eye diameter vs. minimum eye diameter: 1.1���1.3. POL:OOL: POL equal to or shorter than OOL and ocellar triangle with short base OR POL longer than OOL and ocellar triangle with wide base. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. lateral ocellar line (LOL): OOL:LOL=1.6���2.5. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. posterior ocellar line (POL): OOL:POL=0.8��� 1.2. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL): posterior ocellar line (POL): lateral ocellar line (LOL): 1.8���2.5:1.6���2.3:1.0. Head shape (anterior view): circular or triangular. Preoccipital lunula count: present. Preoccipital carina count: absent. Occipital carina structure: occipital carina complete. Occipital carina sculpture: crenulate. Preoccipital furrow count: present. Preoccipital furrow anterior end: preoccipital furrow ends inside ocellar triangle, but ends posterior to the anterior ocellus. Preoccipital furrow sculpture: crenulate. Postocellar carina count: present. Dorsal margin of occipital carina vs. dorsal margin of lateral ocellus in lateral view: occipital carina ventral to lateral ocellus in lateral view. Transverse scutes on upper face count: absent. Transverse frontal carina count: absent. Randomly sized areolae around setal pits on upper face count: absent. Setal pit on vertex size: smaller than diameter of scutes. Ventromedian setiferous patch and ventrolateral setiferous patch count: absent. White, thick setae on upper face count: absent. Antennal scrobe count: absent. Facial structure count: facial sulcus present. Facial sulcus count: present. Median facial keel count: absent. Supraclypeal depression count: present. Supraclypeal depression structure: present medially, inverted U-shaped. Intertorular area count: present. Intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina shape: acute. Median process of intertorular carina structure: process extends across intertorular area towards dorsal margin of clypeus; process does not extend across intertorular area to dorsal margin of clypeus. Median region of intertorular area shape: convex. Ventral margin of antennal rim vs. dorsal margin of clypeus: not adjacent. Torulo���clypeal carina count: present. Subtorular carina count: absent. Mandibular tooth count: 2. Mandibular lancea count: absent. Mesosoma: Weber length: WL=700���900 ��m. Anterior mesoscutal width (AscW) vs. posterior mesoscutal width (PscW): AscW/PscW=0.5���0.9. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. anterior mesoscutal width (AscW): MscL/ AscW=1.2���2.1. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. mesoscutellar length (MscIL): MscL:MscIL= 0.9���1.0. Wing count: present. Fore wing size: wings present and macropterous with apex extending past petiole. Pronotum median length: less than longest median anatomical line of the mesoscutum. Notaulus count: present. Crenulae of notaulus width: width of the crenulae does not increase more than 2�� anteriorly. Notaulus posterior end location: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Posterior region of notaulus orientation: posterior end of notaulus does not curve and is not adjacent to median mesoscutal sulcus. Median mesoscutal sulcus count: present. Median mesoscutal sulcus posterior end: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Scutoscutellar sulcus vs. transscutal articulation location: adjacent. Axillular carinae count: present. Axillular carinae shape: the left and right carinae are separated posteromedially. Speculum ventral limit: not extending ventrally of pleural pit line. Metapleural sulcus shape: straight. Mesometapleural sulcus count: present. Ventrolateral invagination of the pronotum count: present. Sternaulus count: present. Sternaulus length: elongate and exceeding 1/2 of mesopleuron length at level of sternaulus. Sternaulus sculpture: smooth. Epicnemial carina count: complete. Epicnemium posterior margin shape: anterior discrimenal pit present; epicnemial carina curved. Transverse striations on the ventral metapleural area count: absent. Scutes on posterior region of mesoscutum and dorsal region of mesoscutellum convexity: flat. Ventral projection of the metapleural carina count: absent. Lateral propodeal carina count: present. Lateral propodeal carina shape: inverted ���Y��� (left and right lateral propodeal are adjacent medially posterior to antecostal sulcus of the first abdominal tergum, and connected to the antecostal sulcus by a median carina representing the median branch of the inverted ���Y���). Mesopostscutellum count: absent (scutellum flat).Anteromedian projection of the metanoto���propodeo���metapecto���mesopectal complex count: absent. Posterior margin of nucha in dorsal view shape: straight. Metasoma: Transverse carina on petiole shape: concave. Paired blue iridescent ovoid patches on the syntergite count: absent. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. syntergal translucent patch maximum width: 1.8���2.8. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: 2.0���2.8. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 1.7���2.5. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 1.1���2.3. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anterolaterally. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anteromedially. Synsternal setiferous patch shape: linear, with a patch of setae lateral or posterior to the synsternal translucent patch. Synsternal setiferous patch structure: comprised of a single or double row of setae anterior to the synsternal translucent patch, with a patch of setae lateral or posterior to the synsternal translucent patch. Synsternal setiferous patch anterior end: synsternal setiferous patch begins anterior to the synsternal translucent patch anterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch posterior end: synsternal setiferous patch ends lateral to the synsternal translucent patch posterior margin; synsternal setiferous patch ends posterior to the synsternal translucent patch posterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch length vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: synsternal setiferous patch at least 2�� as long as the maximum width of the synsternal translucent patch. S1 length vs. shortest width: S1 wider than long. Male Genitalia: Distal margin of male S9 shape: convex. Proximolateral corner of male S9 shape: blunt. Male S9 distal setal line/setal patch count: distal setae composing transverse setiferous line or lines. Male S9 distal setal line / setal patch structure: single or double transverse row of distal setae. Distomedian hairless area interrupting transverse row of setae or patch on male S9 count: absent with distal setiferous patch/line continuous medially. Submedial projections on proximal margin of S9 count: absent. Cupula length vs. gonostyle���volsella complex length: cupula less than 1/2 the length of gonostyle���volsella complex in lateral view. Proximodorsal notch of cupula count: present. Proximodorsal notch of cupula shape: arched (inverted U-shape). Proximodorsal notch of cupula width vs length: wider than long. Proximolateral projection of the cupula shape: acute. Gonocondyle count: present. Gonocondyle shape: blunt. Distodorsal margin of cupula shape: straight. Distoventral submedian corner of the cupula count: absent. Dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: present. Dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex shape: simple (not bilobed). Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: present. Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex length relative to length of gonostyle���volsella complex: dorsomedian conjunctiva extending between 1/3 to 1/2 the length of gonostyle���volsella complex in dorsal view. Dorsomedial margin of gonostyle���volsella complex shape: straight with a median projection. Proximal end of dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex shape: blunt or straight. Parossiculus count or parossiculus and gonostipes fusion: present and parossiculi not fused with the gonostipes. Medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count or fusion of parossiculi: medioventral conjunctiva present and parossiculi independent or fused proximally. Apical parossicular setae count: one. Distal projection of the parossiculus count: absent. Distal projection of the penisvalva count: absent. Gonossiculus spine count: 2. Gonossiculus spine length: one spine not more than 2�� as long as the other(s) (spines of similar lengths). Harpe length: harpe shorter than gonostipes in lateral view. Harpe shape: simple and not bilobed. Harpe orientation: medial. Lateral margin of harpe shape: widest point of harpe is at its articulation site with gonostyle���volsella complex. Distal margin of harpe in lateral view: blunt. Lateral setae of harpe count: present. Lateral setae of harpe orientation: oriented distally. Lateral setae on harpe density: setae sparse. Dense patch of setae on the distoventral edge of the harpe count: absent. Distal setae on harpe length: setae of equal length across distal end of harpe. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe length vs. harpe width in lateral view: setae as long as or shorter than harpe width. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe orientation: distomedially. Sensillar ring area of harpe orientation: distomedially. Sensillar ring shape: circular. Distoventral margin of harpe in lateral view: convex. Distribution. Nearctic. Etymology. This species is named rosemaryae after the first author���s mother, Rosemary Trietsch, who underwent 2 surgeries, 4 chemotherapy sessions, a month of radiation, and triumphantly beat breast cancer during the course of this research. Material Examined. Holotype male: USA: Ohio: CMNHENT0022770 (CLEV). Paratypes (7 males): USA: Ohio: 7 males. CMNHENT0022771, 0022798, 0022801, 0022821 (CLEV); PSUC _ FEM 9042, 27292, 86284 (OSUC)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on pages 138-142, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976

Conostigmus crawfordi (Mann, 1920) Fig. 20 Species Comments and History. Mann (1920) described Megaspilus crawfordi from two female specimens collected from a nest of Formica exsectoides Forel, 1886 in Virginia. Muesebeck and Walkley (1951) later transferred the species to the genus Conostigmus. The male of the species is unknown, but the female holotype and paratype specimens are present at the USNM in good condition. Both are point mounted with the ants Mann collected them with. The female holotype exhibits the following combination of characters: brachypterous; facial pit present; occipital carinae complete; postocellar carina present; preoccipital furrow present and crenulate, reaching the postocellar carina; axillular carinae absent; and sternaulus present and elongate, exceeding 3/4 of the mesopleuron length at the level of the sternaulus. Mann (1920) noted that the most closely related species to C. crawfordi is C. canadensis. While they have several characters in common (brachypterous, sternaulus present and elongate, facial pit present, postocellar carina present, preoccipital furrow present), C. canadensis has axillular carinae, whereas C. crawfordi lacks this trait. A more similar species is C. bipunctatus; in addition to the characters shared between C. crawfordi and C. canadensis, C. bipunctatus also lacks axillular carinae. It is possible that these are the same species. Unfortunately, the type is the only known specimen of C. crawfordi, and we were not able to make a full comparison of the two species during the limited time we had with the type. Because the male of C. crawfordi is unknown, male specimens cannot be compared either. More work is needed before a conclusion can be made. We consider C. crawfordi and C. bipunctatus separate species at this time, though future work could show otherwise. For now, we consider Conostigmus crawfordi as a species inquirenda. Material Examined. Lectotype female: USA: Virginia: USNMENT01339781 (USNM). Paralectotypes (1 female): USA: Virginia: 1 female. USNMENT01339780 (USNM)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on pages 35-36, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Mann, M. (1920) A proctotrypid inquiline with Formica exsectoides Forel. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 22, 59 - 60.","Muesebeck, C. F. W. & Walkley, L. M. (1951) Superfamily Proctotrupoidea. In: Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico- - Synoptic Catalogue, US Department of Agriculture Monograph, No. 2, pp. 655 - 718."]}

Conostigmus muratorei Trietsch sp. nov. Figs. 72, 73, 74 Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other Nearctic Conostigmus by the presence of the mesopostscutellum, the absence of the sternaulus, the width of the crenulae of the notauli increasing more than 2�� anteriorly, and the presence of the dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex. This is also the only known Conostigmus species where the dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex is bilobed. Whereas most male Conostigmus have flagellomere length gradually decreasing apically, in this species F1���F5 are of similar lengths, with some specimens having F4 and F5 longer than F1, though this can vary between specimens. The female of this species is unknown. The habitus of this species is unique. Its wide head and long, narrow mesosoma, coupled with the absence of the sternaulus and independent parossiculi (medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex present), make this species a member of the Dolichoceraphron subgenus (Dessart and Cancemi, 1987). The type species of this genus is the Palearctic species C. linearis, of which the male is unknown. Conostigmus muratorei is the first member of this subgenus recognized from the Nearctic. Variability. There is intraspecific variability in the anterior preoccipital furrow end���in some specimens it ends just before the ocellar triangle (PSUC_ FEM 34239), whereas in other specimens it extends inside the ocellar triangle (PSUC_ FEM 34093, PSUC_FEM 9055). Whereas most male Conostigmus have flagellomere length gradually decreasing apically, in this species F1���F5 are of similar lengths, with some specimens having F4 and F5 longer than F1 (PSUC_ FEM 34093, UCRC_ENT 00457090). This species has 2 mandibular points present, but there is variation in the length of these mandibular points. The dorsal mandibular point can appear much shorter than the ventral mandibular point, which also occurs in C. bipunctatus and C. madagascariensis (see Mik�� et al., 2016, Fig. 37). Description. Body length: 1.275���2.0 mm. Color hue pattern in male: cranium, mesosoma, metasoma brown to dark brown; F1���F9 light brown to brown; scape, pedicel ochre to brown; legs ochre to light brown. Color intensity pattern in male: metasoma and mandible lighter than mesosoma; metasoma lighter than mesosoma and cranium; pedicel lighter than scape. Color intensity dorsal and ventral to the site of the sternaulus: concolorous. Color intensity pattern of syntergite: petiole neck and anterior region of syntergite concolorus with the posterior region of the syntergite. Foveolate sculpture on body count: absent. Rugose sculpturing count: absent. Rugose region on upper face count: absent. Antennae: Male scape length vs. pedicel length: 2.5���3.6. Male scape length vs. F1 length: 1.3���1.7. Male F1 length vs. pedicel length: 1.5���2.8. Male F1 length vs. male F2 length: 1.0���1.2. Longest male flagellomere: F1���F5; sometimes F4 or F5 longer than F1. Length of setae on male flagellomere vs. male flagellomere width: setae shorter than width of flagellomeres. Sensillar patch of the male flagellomere pattern: F6���F9. Head: Head width, dorsal view: at least 1.3�� wider than mesosoma. Head height (HH, lateral view) vs. eye height (EHf, anterior view): HH:EHf=1.5���1.9. Head height (HH) vs. head length (HL): HH:HL=1.1���1.5. Head width (HW) vs. interorbital space (IOS): HW:IOS=1.6���1.9. Head width (HW) vs. head height (HH): HW:HH=1.0��� 1.4. Cephalic size (csb): Mean: 300���500 ��m. Maximum eye diameter vs. minimum eye diameter: 1.2���1.4. POL: OOL: POL equal to or shorter than OOL and ocellar triangle with short base. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. lateral ocellar line (LOL): OOL:LOL=2.0���2.7. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL) vs. posterior ocellar line (POL): OOL:POL=1.0���1.8. Male ocular ocellar line (OOL): posterior ocellar line (POL): lateral ocellar line (LOL): 2.0��� 2.7:1.3���2.4:1.0. Head shape (anterior view): circular or triangular. Preoccipital lunula count: absent. Preoccipital carina count: absent. Occipital carina structure: occipital carina complete. Occipital carina sculpture: smooth. Preoccipital furrow count: present. Preoccipital furrow anterior end: preoccipital furrow ends inside ocellar triangle, but ends posterior to the anterior ocellus. Preoccipital furrow sculpture: crenulate. Postocellar carina count: absent. Dorsal margin of occipital carina vs. dorsal margin of lateral ocellus in lateral view: occipital carina ventral to lateral ocellus in lateral view. Transverse scutes on upper face count: absent. Transverse frontal carina count: absent. Randomly sized areolae around setal pits on upper face count: absent. Setal pit on vertex size: smaller than diameter of scutes. Ventromedian setiferous patch and ventrolateral setiferous patch count: absent. White, thick setae on upper face count: absent. Antennal scrobe count: absent. Facial structure count: facial pit present. Facial pit count: present. Facial sulcus count: absent. Median facial keel count: absent. Supraclypeal depression count: present. Supraclypeal depression structure: absent medially, represented by two grooves laterally of facial pit. Intertorular area count: present. Intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina count: present. Median process on intertorular carina shape: acute. Median process of intertorular carina structure: process does not extend across intertorular area to dorsal margin of clypeus. Median region of intertorular area shape: convex. Ventral margin of antennal rim vs. dorsal margin of clypeus: not adjacent. Torulo���clypeal carina count: present. Subtorular carina count: absent. Mandibular tooth count: 2. Mandibular lancea count: absent. Mesosoma: Weber length: WL=390���770 ��m. Anterior mesoscutal width (AscW) vs. posterior mesoscutal width (PscW): AscW/PscW=0.6���0.9. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. anterior mesoscutal width (AscW): MscL/ AscW=1.8���2.4. Mesoscutal length (MscL) vs. mesoscutellar length (MscIL): MscL:MscIL= 0.9���1.2. Wing count: present. Fore wing size: wings present and macropterous with apex extending past petiole. Pronotum median length: less than longest median anatomical line of the mesoscutum. Notaulus count: present. Crenulae of notaulus width: width of the crenulae increases more than 2�� anteriorly. Notaulus posterior end location: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Posterior region of notaulus orientation: posterior end of notaulus curves and is adjacent to median mesoscutal sulcus. Median mesoscutal sulcus count: present. Median mesoscutal sulcus posterior end: adjacent to transscutal articulation. Scutoscutellar sulcus vs. transscutal articulation location: adjacent. Axillular carinae count: absent. Speculum ventral limit: not extending ventrally of pleural pit line. Metapleural sulcus shape: straight. Mesometapleural sulcus count: present. Ventrolateral invagination of the pronotum count: present. Sternaulus count: absent. Sternaulus length: sternaulus absent. Epicnemial carina count: complete. Epicnemium posterior margin shape: anterior discrimenal pit present; epicnemial carina curved. Transverse striations on the ventral metapleural area count: absent. Scutes on posterior region of mesoscutum and dorsal region of mesoscutellum convexity: flat. Ventral projection of the metapleural carina count: present. Ventral projection of the metapleural carina length: less than 2�� as long as wide. Lateral propodeal carina count: present. Lateral propodeal carina shape: inverted ���Y��� (left and right lateral propodeal are adjacent medially posterior to antecostal sulcus of the first abdominal tergum, and connected to the antecostal sulcus by a median carina representing the median branch of the inverted ���Y���). Mesopostscutellum count: present (posterior margin of scutellum appears raised). Anteromedian projection of the metanoto���propodeometapecto���mesopectal complex count: absent. Posterior margin of nucha in dorsal view shape: concave. Metasoma: Transverse carina on petiole shape: concave. Paired blue iridescent ovoid patches on the syntergite count: absent. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. syntergal translucent patch maximum width: 1.5. Shortest width of petiole neck vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: 0.75, 1.13. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 2.0. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width vs. minimum width: 2.0���2.7. Syntergal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anterolaterally. Synsternal translucent patch maximum width orientation: anterior���posteriorly. Synsternal setiferous patch shape: linear, with a patch of setae lateral or posterior to the synsternal translucent patch. Synsternal setiferous patch structure: comprised of a single or double row of setae anterior to the synsternal translucent patch, with a patch of setae lateral or posterior to the synsternal translucent patch. Synsternal setiferous patch anterior end: synsternal setiferous patch begins anterior to the synsternal translucent patch anterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch posterior end: synsternal setiferous patch ends posterior to the synsternal translucent patch posterior margin. Synsternal setiferous patch length vs. synsternal translucent patch maximum width: synsternal setiferous patch at least 2�� as long as the maximum width of the synsternal translucent patch. S1 length vs. shortest width: S1 wider than long. Male Genitalia: Distal margin of male S9 shape: convex. Proximolateral corner of male S9 shape: blunt. Male S9 distal setal line/setal patch count: distal setae composing transverse setiferous line or lines. Male S9 distal setal line / setal patch structure: single transverse row of distal setae occurring medially with less than 4 setae below it. Distomedian hairless area interrupting transverse row of setae or patch on male S9 count: absent with distal setiferous patch/line continuous medially. Submedial projections on proximal margin of S9 count: absent. Cupula length vs. gonostyle���volsella complex length: cupula less than 1/2 the length of gonostyle���volsella complex in lateral view. Proximodorsal notch of cupula count: present. Proximodorsal notch of cupula shape: arched (inverted U-shape). Proximodorsal notch of cupula width vs length: wider than long. Proximolateral projection of the cupula shape: blunt. Gonocondyle count: present. Gonocondyle shape: acute. Dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: present. Dorsomedian projection of the gonostyle���volsella complex shape: bilobed. Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count: present. Dorsomedian conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex length relative to length of gonostyle���volsella complex: dorsomedian conjunctiva extending more than or equal to 2/3 of length of gonostyle���volsella complex in dorsal view. Dorsomedial margin of gonostyle���volsella complex shape: straight with a median projection. Parossiculus count or parossiculus and gonostipes fusion: present and parossiculi not fused with the gonostipes. Medioventral conjunctiva of the gonostyle���volsella complex count or fusion of parossiculi: medioventral conjunctiva present and parossiculi independent or fused proximally. Apical parossicular setae count: three. Distal projection of the parossiculus count: present. Distal projection of the penisvalva count: absent. Gonossiculus spine count: 3. Harpe length: harpe shorter than gonostipes in lateral view. Harpe shape: simple and not bilobed. Harpe orientation: medial. Lateral margin of harpe shape: widest point of harpe is in its proximal 2/3rds. Distal margin of harpe in lateral view: blunt or straight. Lateral setae of harpe count: present. Lateral setae of harpe orientation: oriented distolaterally. Lateral setae on harpe density: setae sparse. Dense patch of setae on the distoventral edge of the harpe count: absent. Distal setae on harpe length: setae of equal length across distal end of harpe. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe length vs. harpe width in lateral view: setae as long as or shorter than harpe width. Distodorsal setae of sensillar ring of harpe orientation: distally. Sensillar ring area of harpe orientation: medially. Sensillar ring shape: circular. Distoventral margin of harpe in lateral view: convex. Distribution. Nearctic. Etymology. This species is named muratorei in memory of the first author���s grandfather, Dr. Joseph F. Muratore, who was passionate about entomology and passed away during the course of this research. Material Examined. Holotype male: USA: California: PSUC _ FEM 34093, UCFC 349597 (UCFC). Paratypes (12 males): USA: California: 12 males. PSUC _ FEM 36106, 92612 (PSUC); PSUC _ FEM 9055 (ROME); PSUC _ FEM 32929, 34042, 34084, 34100, 34239, 34262, 88170 (UCFC); UCRC _ ENT 00457088, 00457090 (UCRC)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n, Ezray, Briana & Deans, Andrew R., 2020, A Taxonomic Revision of Nearctic Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea: Megaspilidae), pp. 1-155 in Zootaxa 4792 (1) on pages 130-134, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4792.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3895976, {"references":["Dessart, P. & Cancemi, P. (1987) Tableau dichotomique des genres de Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera) avec commentaries et nouvelles especes. Frustula Entomologie, 7 - 8, 307 - 372.","Miko, I., Trietsch, C., Sandall, E. L., Yoder, M. J., Hines, H. & Deans, A. R. (2016) Malagasy Conostigmus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea) and the secret of scutes. PeerJ, 4, e 2682. https: // doi. org / 10.7717 / peerj. 2682"]}

Background A new species, Dendrocerus scutellaris Trietsch & Mikó (Hymenoptera: Megaspilidae), is described here from male and female specimens captured in Costa Rica. This species is the only known ceraphronoid wasp with a straight mandibular surface and raised dorsal projections on the scutellum, called the mesoscutellar comb. It is hypothesised that the function of the mesoscutellar comb is to aid the emergence of the adult from the host, especially since the mandibles lack a pointed surface to tear open the pupal case. The authors also provide phenotypic data in a semantic form to facilitate data integration and accessibility across taxa and provide an updated phenotype bank of morphological characters for megaspilid taxonomic treatments. In updating this phenotype bank, the authors continue to make taxonomic data accessible to future systematic efforts focusing on Ceraphronoidea. New information A new species, Dendrocerus scutellaris (Hymenoptera: Megaspilidae) Trietsch & Mikó, is described from both male and female specimens captured in Costa Rica.

Ormocerus dirigoius Morin & Gates, n. sp. is described and compared to the North American O. americanus Dzhanokmen and Grissell and European species O. latus Walker and O. vernalis Walker. A range expansion into the Nearctic is reported for O. latus, previously only known from the Palearctic. Specimens were collected in Harpswell, Maine during a study of the parasitic Hymenoptera community associated with Operophtera brumata Linnaeus (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), an invasive species. The species are keyed and illustrated using macrophotography and scanning electron microphotography.

It is widely accepted that there are two ovipositor system types in Platygastroidea. The Scelio-type ovipositor system features telescoping conjunctiva between metasomal tergites 6 and 7 and operates via internal changes in hydrostatic pressure alone, whereas muscles are involved in ovipositor extension and retraction in the Ceratobaeus-type. We here provide analyses of ovipositor systems in two platygastrine genera that cannot be classified as either Scelio- or Ceratobaeus-type, but exhibit telescoping conjunctivae and extend the ovipositor system without musculature. These represent unique derivations that are clearly identifiable by the location of the telescoping conjunctiva. In Gastrotrypes Brues, the telescoping conjunctiva occurs between T5 and T6, and in Platygaster tubulosa Brues it occurs between each segment from T3 to T6. If there are convergent derivations of a Scelio-type ovipositor system within Scelionidae (sensu Masner 1976), their identification will require examination of new characters, one of which we provide here, the presence and form of a ring of acanthae on the conjunctiva between T6 and T7.

Ancestral character state reconstruction has been long used to gain insight into the evolution of individual traits in organisms. However, organismal anatomies (= entire phenotypes) are not merely ensembles of individual traits, rather they are complex systems where traits interact with each other due to anatomical dependencies (when one trait depends on the presence of another trait) and developmental constraints. Comparative phylogenetics has been largely lacking a method for reconstructing the evolution of entire organismal anatomies or organismal body regions. Herein, we present a new approach named PARAMO (Phylogenetic Ancestral Reconstruction of Anatomy by Mapping Ontologies, Tarasov and Uyeda 2019) that takes into account anatomical dependencies and uses stochastic maps (i.e., phylogenetic trees with an instance of mapped evolutionary history of characters, Huelsenbeck et al. 2003) along with anatomy ontologies to reconstruct organismal anatomies. Our approach treats the entire phenotype or its component body regions as single complex characters and allows exploring and comparing phenotypic evolution at different levels of anatomical hierarchy. These complex characters are constructed by ontology-informed amalgamation of elementary characters (i.e., those coded in character matrix) using stochastic maps. In our approach, characters are linked with the terms from an anatomy ontology, which allows viewing them not just as an ensemble of character state tokens but as entities that have their own biological meaning provided by the ontology. This ontology-informed framework provides new opportunities for tracking phenotypic radiations and anatomical evolution of organisms, which we explore using a large dataset for the insect order Hymenoptera (sawflies, wasps, ants and bees).

Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950 Fig. 11 Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950: 552, ♂. MNHN. Keyed. Ceraphron cavifrons – Risbec 1955: 216. Keyed. –– Dessart 1989: 227. Keyed. Material examined Holotype KENYA • ♂; “Forêt de L’Elgon, Versant Est. 2.700–2.800m., Mission de l’Omo, ARAMBOURG, CHAPPUIS, JEANNEL, 1932–1933.” (Risbec 1950: 552); MNHN EY22473. Distribution Afrotropical. Comments Risbec (1950) described the species from a single male, and thought it could be related to C. oriphilus, C. naivashae or C. alticola, three species all described by Kieffer based on single female specimens. Risbec comments that Kieffer’s descriptions are not detailed enough to accurately match this male to any of the three females, suggesting that Risbec had not viewed those three Kieffer types at the time of the 1950 publication. The introduction to his key to African and Malagasy Ceraphronoidea (Risbec 1955) also omits C. oriphilus, C. naivashae and C. alticola due to his confusion with Kieffer’s original descriptions. Even though all three specimens were deposited at the MNHN, it appears that Risbec never viewed them. Dessart did not dissect the male holotype or leave any labels on it indicating that he had viewed it, but he did include the species in a key to African Ceraphron species south of the Sahara, where he wrote that the male had been “insuffisamment décrit” and described a few additional characters (Dessart 1989: 227). Thus, we know that Dessart did view this specimen. Dessart (1989) distinguished this species from C. alticola and C. naivashae in this key and had also previously synonymized Ceraphron oriphilus with Aphanogmus fumipennis (Dessart 1966a), so it is not likely that this specimen is the male to any of Kieffer’s three female specimens, contrary to what Risbec (1950) thought. The male holotype specimen (MNHN EY22473) is on a double point mount. The pin through the specimen made it difficult to image. The specimen is missing the last two flagellomeres from the right antenna. It was not possible to image the male genitalia, but the specimen appears to have harpe that are pointed and longer than the gonostipes, with distal tufts of setae., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 22-23, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Risbec J. 1950. Contribution a l'etude des Proctotrupidae (Serphiidae). Proctotrupides de la Section technique d'Agriculture tropicale (A. O. F.) et Proctotrupides du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Afrique et Colonies francaises). Travaux du Laboratoire d'Entomologie du Secteur Soudanais de Recherches Agronomiques, Gouvernement Generale de l'Afrique Occidentale Francais.","Risbec J. 1955. Diaprinae et Ceraphroninae de Madagascar (Hym. Proctotrupidae). Revue Francaise d'Entomologie 22 (3): 205 - 221.","Dessart P. 1989. Considerations sur les especes africaines, au sud du Sahara, rapportees au genre Ceraphron Jurine, 1807. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 125: 213 - 235.","Dessart P. 1966 a. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (XI). Revision des Ceraphronidae d'Afrique orientale decrits par l'Abbe Jaen-Jacques Kieffer. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 42: 1 - 30."]}

Ceraphron testaceus (Risbec, 1953) Fig. 27 Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec, 1953a: 560, Fig. 4, ♂. Ceraphron testaceus – Dessart 1962: 300. Generic transfer. Ceraphron (?) testaceus – Dessart 1989: 224. Keyed. Material examined Holotype CÔTE D’IVOIRE • ♂; “Adiopodoumé. Sur galles de Phytolyma lata 7-1951. A Ledoux. ” (Risbec 1953a: 563); MNHN EY22457. Other material COUNTRY UNKNOWN • 1 ♂; MNHN EY22458. Distribution Afrotropical. Comments Risbec (1953a: 560) described the new genus Ceranogmus as a “Genre voisin de Ceraphron et Aphanogmus ”. Risbec (1953a) described the species Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec as the type species for this genus, providing a detailed description and illustration. The species was described based on a single male with the following locality information: “Adiopodoumé. Sur galles de Phytolyma lata 7-1951. A Ledoux.” (Risbec 1953a: 563). A type repository was never indicated for the specimen. Dessart synonymized this genus with Ceraphron (Dessart 1962) and later included the species Ceraphron testaceus in a key to African species, but these were based largely on the description and the illustrations of Ceranogmus testaceus that Risbec (1953a) provided. It is clear from his writing and the question marks peppered throughout it that Dessart never found or observed the type specimen for the species for himself. CT found 2 slides labeled “ Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec ” in the same case of Risbec material containing the Ceraphron aphidi slides in the MNHN collections. Like the slides for Ceraphron aphidi, each slide preparation had one or multiple specimens floating freely in glycerine, protected by an additional glass cover slide attached with wax along the edges. One slide, MNHN EY22457, has information that matches the locality information given for the type in Risbec (1953a). The slide contains a male specimen with the head detached. Since Risbec did not always label his type specimens (David G. Notton pers. comm.), it very likely that this specimen is the missing holotype, and we consider it as such. The second slide (MNHN EY22458) also contains a male specimen with the head detached, but the collection information does not match., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 48-49, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Risbec J. 1953 a. Chalcidoi'des et Proctotrupoi'des de l'Afrique occidentale francaise. Bulletin de l'Institut francais d'Afrique noire 15: 548 - 609.","Dessart P. 1962. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (I). Notes sur quelques Ceraphronidae africains et tableau dichotomique des genres. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 98: 291 - 311.","Dessart P. 1989. Considerations sur les especes africaines, au sud du Sahara, rapportees au genre Ceraphron Jurine, 1807. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 125: 213 - 235."]}

Dendrocerus serricornis (Boheman, 1832) Fig. 29 Ceraphron serricornis Boheman, 1832: 334, ♂. MZLU. Ceraphron serricornis Zetterstedt, 1840: 413, ♂. MZLU. Preoccupied by Ceraphron serricornis Boheman, 1832.A junior objective synonym of Ceraphron serricornis Boheman, 1832, synonymized by Dessart (1972c). Ceraphron Piceae Ratzeburg, 1852: 179. Type apparently destroyed. Synonymized by Dessart (1972c). Ceraphron lapponicus Thomson, 1858: 290, ♀. NHRS. Synonymized by Dessart (1972c). Lygocerus Subramosus Kieffer, 1907a: 39, ♂, ♀. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1972c). Lygocerus pinicola Muesebeck, 1959: 92, ♂, ♀. USNM. Synonymized by Dessart (1996). Atritomellus zetterstedti Ghesquière, 1960: 208. Replacement name for Ceraphron serricornis Zetterstedt, 1840. Synonymized by Dessart (1972c). Ceraphron serricornis Boheman – Thomson 1858: 292. Description. Lygocerus serricornis (Boheman) – Marshall 1868: 158. Generic transfer. –– Kieffer 1909: 8. Generic transfer; 1914c: 147, 156. Description, keyed. Lygocerus lapponicus – Dalla Torre 1898: 534. Generic transfer. –– Kieffer 1914c: 148, 159. Description, keyed. Megaspilus piceae – Kieffer 1906: 256. Generic transfer. Lygocerus Lapponicus – Kieffer 1907a: 56. Description. Lygocerus Piceae – Kieffer 1907a: 65. Description. Ceraphron Serricornis Zetterstedt – Kieffer 1907b: 261. Description. Dendrocerus serricornis (Zetterstedt) – Kieffer 1909: 6. Generic transfer. Atritomellus serricornis (Zetterstedt) – Kieffer 1914c: 142, 143. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Lygocerus subramosus – Kieffer 1914c: 146, 151. Description, keyed. Lygocerus piceae – Kieffer 1914c: 162. Description. Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) subramosus – Dessart 1966b: 13. Generic transfer, subgeneric assignment. Dendrocerus (? Atritomellus) zetterstedti: Dessart 1966b: 13. Generic transfer, subgeneric assignment. Lygocerus (Lygocerus) lapponicus – Hellén 1966: 10, 13. Description, subgeneric assignment, keyed. Lygocerus pinicola – Masner & Muesebeck 1968: 113. Type information. –– Dessart 1996: 289. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus serricornis (Boheman, 1832). Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman) – Dessart 1972c: 31, 43, 251, figs 145–154. Description, illustration, synonymy, type information, keyed, subgeneric transfer. –– Teodurescu 1973: 67. Description. –– Alekseev 1978: 671, 675. Description. –– Alekseev & Radchenko 2001: 10, 11. Keyed. Ceraphron serricornis Zetterstedt – Dessart 1972c: 253. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832). Atritomellus zetterstedti – Dessart 1972c: 253, 267. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832). Ceraphron lapponicus – Dessart 1972c: 253, 262, 263. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832), type information. Ceraphron piceae – Dessart 1972c: 253, 262. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832). Lygocerus subramosus – Dessart 1972c: 253, 265. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832). Dendrocerus (? Atritomellus) zetterstedti – Dessart 1972c: 267. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832). Dendrocerus serricornis (Boheman) – Dessart 1978: 299. Diagnosis. –– Fergusson 1980: 263, 265, 290. Description, synonymy, keyed. Material examined COUNTRY UNKNOWN • 1 ♂; MNHN EY22454. Distribution Nearctic and palearctic. Comments CT found one slide preparation (prép. no. 7403/221) containing only the male genitalia (MNHN EY22454) that Dessart made in 1974. The rest of the specimen could not be located. Though this specimen is not a type, we felt it was a valuable specimen to image since there are no photographs of Dendrocerus serricornis to date. Dessart (1972c) provides illustrations of the male genitalia, which correspond well with the genitalia imaged., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 51-53, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Boheman C. H. 1832. Forsok till beskrifning af de i Sverige funne Arter, horande till Insekt-slagtet Ceraphron. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 1831: 322 - 339.","Zetterstedt J. W. 1840. Hymenoptera. In: Insecta Lapponica. Sectio secunda. Voss, Leipzig [Lipsiae]. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 8242","Dessart P. 1972 c. Correzioni al \" Repertorio della flora e fauna vivente e fossile della Romagna \" di P. Zangheri. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 20: 39 - 44.","Ratzeburg J. T. C. 1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten in forstlicher und entomologischer Beziehung: ein Anhang zur Abbildung und Beschreibung der Forstinsecten. Achte, neunte und zehnte Centurie. Vol. 3. Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 11094","Thomson C. G. 1858. Sveriges Proctotruper. Tredje Gruppen Ceraphronini. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskapsakademiens Forhandlingar 15: 287 - 305.","Kieffer J. J. 1907 a. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (1): 1 - 144. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24299","Muesebeck C. F. W. 1959. New reared species of Lygocerus Foerster (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronidea). Entomological News 70: 91 - 96.","Dessart P. 1996. Notules hymenopterologiques nos 10 - 21 (Ceraphronoidea; Chalcidoidea Pteromalidae). Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 132: 277 - 299.","Ghesquiere J. 1960. Le genre Atritomellus Kieffer en Afrique du Nord (Hymenoptera Proctotrupoidea Ceraphronoidae). Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 96: 205 - 215.","Marshall T. A. 1868. Notes on some parasitic Hymenoptera, with descriptions of new species. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 5: 154 - 160.","Kieffer J. J. 1909. Hymenoptera. Fam. Ceraphronidae. In: Wytsman P. (ed) Genera Insectorum. Fasc. 94. V. Verteneuil & L. Desmet, Brussels.","Dalla Torre C. G. 1898. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque Descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Vol. V: Chalcididae et Proctotrupidae. Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelmann, Leipzig [Lipsiae]. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10348","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Kieffer J. J. 1906. Beschreibung neuer Proctotrypiden aus Nord- und Zentralamerika. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 50: 237 - 290. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 23747","Kieffer J. J. 1907 b. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (2): 145 - 288. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24300","Dessart P. 1966 b. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (XII). A propos des Ceraphronidae Megaspilinae males a antennes rameuses. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 42: 1 - 16.","Hellen W. 1966. Die Ceraphroniden Finnlands (Hymenoptera Proctotrupoidea). Fauna Fennica 20: 1 - 45.","Masner L. & Muesebeck C. F. W. 1968. The Types of Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) in the United States National Museum. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 270. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.270","Teodurescu I. 1973. Contributii la cunoasterea gazdelor unor specii de Megaspilidae (Hymenoptera - Ceraphronoidea). Studii si Cercetari de Biologie, Seria Zoologie 25 (6): 519 - 526.","Alekseev V. N. 1978. Superfamily Ceraphronoidea. In: Medvedev G. S. (ed.) Determination of Insects of the European Portion of the USSR 3 (2): 1213 - 1257.","Alekseev V. N. & Radchenko T. D. 2001. Ceraphronoid wasps (Hymenoptera, Ceraphronoidea) of the fauna of the Ukraine. Communication 1. Vestnik Zoologii 35 (3): 3 - 16. http: // dspace. nbuv. gov. ua / handle / 123456789 / 9541","Dessart P. 1978. Dendrocerus floridanus (Ashmead, 1881), nouvel exemple d'espece holarctique (Hym. Ceraphronoidea Megaspilidae). Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 114: 295 - 300.","Fergusson N. D. M. 1980. A revision of the British species of Dendrocerus Ratzeburg (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea) with a review of their biology as aphid hyperparasites. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology Series 41 (4): 255 - 314. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 28549"]}

Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832) Fig. 16 Ceraphron abdominalis Boheman, 1832: 330, ♀. Ceraphron tenuicornis Boheman, 1832: 332, ♂. Synonymized by Thomson (1858). Conostigmus Abdominalis var. Testacea Kieffer, 1907a: 112, ♀. MZLU. Synonymized by Dessart (1972b). Conostigmus Divisifrons Kieffer, 1907a: 126, ♀. MNHN. Synonymized by Dessart (1972b). Conostigmus Foveatifrons Kieffer, 1907a: 130, ♀. MCSN. Synonymized by Dessart (1972b). Conostigmus pilosiceps Szabo, 1979: 89, ♀. HNHM. Synonymized by Dessart (1983). Conostigmus curvilineaticeps Szabo, 1979: 91, ♀. HNHM. Synonymized by Dessart (1983). Ceraphron tenuicornis – Thomson 1858: 294. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832). Megaspilus abdominalis – Thomson 1858: 294. Description, generic transfer. –– Hellén 1966: 5, 8. Description, keyed. Conostigmus Abdominalis – Kieffer 1907a: 112, 128. Description, generic transfer. Conostigmus abdominalis var. testaceus – Kieffer 1909: 9. Emendation. –– Dessart 1972b: 28. Type information. Conostigmus abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 171, 172. Keyed. –– Dessart 1972b: 28. Generic placement, synonymy; 1983: 116, 117. Synonymy; 1997b: 35. Comparison with Conostigmus pulchellus Whittaker, 1930. –– Alekseev 1978: 678. Description. Conostigmus abdominalis abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 190. Description. Conostigmus abdominalis testaceus – Kieffer 1914c: 190. Description, change to subspecies status. Conostigmus divisifrons – Kieffer 1914c: 172, 196. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1972b: 28. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832). Conostigmus foveatifrons – Kieffer 1914c: 173, 197. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1972b: 28, 30. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832), type information. Conostigmus abdominalis var. Testacea – Dessart 1972b: 28: Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832). Conostigmus pilosiceps – Dessart 1983: 116. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832). Conostigmus curvilineaticeps – Dessart 1983: 117. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832). Material examined Holotype FRANCE • ♀ of Conostigmus divisifrons Kieffer, 1914, synonymized with Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832); “Frankreich (Maisons-Laffite, im Juli)” (Kieffer 1907a: 196); MNHN EY25343. Distribution Palearctic. Comments Kieffer (1907a) only described the female of C. divisifrons. Dessart (1972b) suspected that the species Kieffer had described was actually Conostigmus abdominalis from the description, but did not know the whereabouts of the specimen at the time. Dessart (1972b) speculated that the specimen had been returned to its owner, J. De Gaulle, and that it would be found in his collection. CT found a single female specimen with a determination label from Kieffer identifying it as C. divisifrons. The locality information matched that of Kieffer (1907a). Though Dessart (1972b) did not know the whereabouts of C. divisifrons, there is a label on this specimen from Dessart (1973) synonymizing this type with Conostigmus abdominalis and providing the publication and page number. Thus, we can conclude that this is the missing holotype of C. divisifrons Kieffer, and that Dessart was able to confirm its synonymization with C. abdominalis. The female is point mounted (MNHN EY25343) and in good condition, with no pieces missing., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 30-31, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Boheman C. H. 1832. Forsok till beskrifning af de i Sverige funne Arter, horande till Insekt-slagtet Ceraphron. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 1831: 322 - 339.","Thomson C. G. 1858. Sveriges Proctotruper. Tredje Gruppen Ceraphronini. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskapsakademiens Forhandlingar 15: 287 - 305.","Kieffer J. J. 1907 a. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (1): 1 - 144. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24299","Dessart P. 1972 b. Contribution a la revision du genre Megaspilus Westwood, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ceraphronoidea Megaspilidae). Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 48: 1 - 55.","Szabo J. B. 1979. New species of the Mongolian proctotrupoid fauna (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea, Ceraphronidae, Diapriidae and Platygasteridae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, Rovartani Kozlemenyek, Series Nova 32 (1): 177 - 179.","Dessart P. 1983. Les Hymenopteres Ceraphronoidea du Mecsek: un coup de balai. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 119: 111 - 122.","Hellen W. 1966. Die Ceraphroniden Finnlands (Hymenoptera Proctotrupoidea). Fauna Fennica 20: 1 - 45.","Kieffer J. J. 1909. Hymenoptera. Fam. Ceraphronidae. In: Wytsman P. (ed) Genera Insectorum. Fasc. 94. V. Verteneuil & L. Desmet, Brussels.","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Whittaker O. 1930. Some new species and a new genus of parasitic Hymenoptera from British Columbia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 32: 67 - 76.","Alekseev V. N. 1978. Superfamily Ceraphronoidea. In: Medvedev G. S. (ed.) Determination of Insects of the European Portion of the USSR 3 (2): 1213 - 1257.","Kieffer J. J. 1914 a. Description de deux nouveaux Hymenopteres myrmecophiles. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France 1914: 141. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24386"]}

Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) Figs 2–4 Calliceras abdominalisThomson, 1858: 303, ♂, ♀. MZLU. Ceraphron pallidiventris Ashmead, 1893: 124, 126, ♀. Keyed. Type missing (Masner & Muesebeck 1968). Synonymized by Dessart (1996). Ceraphron Cameroni Kieffer, 1907b: 230, ♀. BMNH. Synonymized by Dessart (1996). Ceraphron Microneurus Kieffer, 1907b: 238, ♂. MCSN. Synonymized by Dessart (1965). Preoccupied by Aphanogmus Microneurus Kieffer (1907b). Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913b: 197 , ♂. NHMUK, MNHN. Keyed. Calliceras clavata violae Novitzky, 1954: 54, ♂, ♀. NHMW. Synonymized by Dessart (1996). Ceraphron abdominalis – Marshall 1873: 2. Generic transfer. –– Kieffer 1907b: 230, 240. Description. –– Petersen 1956: 117. Variation, type information. –– Dessart 1972c: 35. Discussion of Zangheri (1969). Ceraphron pallidiventris – Brues 1906: 146. Keyed; 1916: 560. Description, keyed. –– Masner & Muesebeck 1968: 107. Type information. –– Dessart 1996: 286. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858). Calliceras myrmecophila – Kieffer 1914b: 77, 100. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Calliceras abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 76, 77. Keyed. –– Szelényi 1939: 87. Description. Calliceras abdominalis abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 95. Description. Calliceras cameroni – Kieffer 1914c: 76, 95. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Calliceras microneura – Kieffer 1914c: 77, 98. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Calliceras pallidiventris – Kieffer 1914c: 79, 110. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Ceraphron myrmecophilus – Kelner-Pillault 1958: 149. Type information. –– Masner 1965: 12. Type information. Aphanogmus abdominalis – Dessart 1964: 121. Generic transfer, description, lectotype designation; 1965: 170. Description. –– Hellén 1966: 30, 32. Description, keyed. –– Alekseev & Kozlov in Alekseev 1978: 682. Description. Ceraphron microneurus – Dessart 1965: 170, 171. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858). Ceraphron cameroni – Masner 1965: 11. Type information. –– Dessart 1996: 286. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858). Calliceras clavata violae – Dessart 1996: 287. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858). Material examined Syntype UNITED KINGDOM • ♂; “ Moeurs et patrie. Angleterre: Londres, myrmecophile (H. Donisthorpe)” (Kieffer 1913a: 197); MNHN EY22475, EY22463 to EY22465. Distribution Nearctic and palearctic. Comments CT found one male specimen marked as the holotype of Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913 in the MNHN collections. However, there is also a male specimen marked as the holotype of this species at the NHMUK (NHMUK 010812101), as well as an additional female specimen (NHMUK 010812106) marked as an allotype. Concerning the female specimen, Kieffer only described the male of the species (1913a) and an allotype has never been published. Though it is not a part of Kieffer’s syntype series, it is worth noting that the female was captured by the same collector in the same month and year as the two males, and mounted in the same way. Both the male NHMUK and MNHN specimens were originally card-mounted (Dessart removed the MNHN specimen from its mount when he dissected it), with collection information written on the front or back of the card mounts. Both specimens were collected at Nethy Bridge from Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761. Based on the similar handwriting and mountings, it appears that both specimens were collected by H. Donisthorpe, though only the NHMUK specimen bears a label with Donisthorpe’s name. The MNHN specimen was collected on “ 14.vi.12 ”, whereas the NHMUK specimen was collected on “ 12.VI.12 ” (the female specimen was captured on “ 23.VI.12 ”). The original locality information given in Kieffer (1913a) (written in French) is “ Angleterre: Londres, myrmecophile (H. Donisthorpe)”, which does not match either male specimen. However, Kieffer (1914c) (written in German) re-describes the species and gives the locality information as “Mit Formica rufa L., im Juni. England (Nethy Bridge)”. Kieffer has been known to make mistakes in correctly reporting specimen localities, especially when the handwriting of the collector was poor (see Notton 2014). It appears that Kieffer made a mistake in his 1913a publication, which he corrected in his 1914c paper (although Nethy Bridge is actually located in Scotland, not England). Dessart dissected the card-mounted specimen at the MNHN (MNHN EY22475) and made three slide preparations (prép. no. 6605-181) of an anterior and posterior wing (MNHN EY22463), the male genitalia and metasoma (MNHN EY22464), and the right antenna and the left mid- and hind legs (MNHN EY22465). Although Dessart examined the specimens at both the MNHN and the NHMUK, it does not appear that he ever declared a lectotype or published anything on this species (Johnson & Musetti 2004). However, Dessart did leave a label on the female at the NHMUK which reads “ Not allotype since only ♂ described… but ♂ and ♀ = APH. crassiceps (K)”. At this time, we consider the two male specimens at the NHMUK and the MNHN as syntypes, not holotypes. However, we synonymize Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913 syn. nov. with Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) based on the male genitalia morphology, body shape and especially the presence of foveae on the median length of the mesoscutellum (Mikó 2012a, 2012b; Mikó et al. 2013). It is possible that this species may also be synonymous with Aphanogmus crassiceps Kieffer, 1907, as Dessart believed, but we leave this to future researchers to investigate., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 7-11, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Thomson C. G. 1858. Sveriges Proctotruper. Tredje Gruppen Ceraphronini. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskapsakademiens Forhandlingar 15: 287 - 305.","Ashmead W. H. 1893. A Monograph of the North American Proctotrypidae. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 45: 1 - 472. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.45.1","Masner L. & Muesebeck C. F. W. 1968. The Types of Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) in the United States National Museum. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 270. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.270","Dessart P. 1996. Notules hymenopterologiques nos 10 - 21 (Ceraphronoidea; Chalcidoidea Pteromalidae). Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 132: 277 - 299.","Kieffer J. J. 1907 b. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (2): 145 - 288. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24300","Dessart P. 1965. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (VI). Les Ceraphroninae et quelques Megaspilinae (Ceraphronidae) du Musee Civique d'Histoire Naturelle de Genes. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 101: 105 - 192.","Kieffer J. J. 1913 b. Proctotrupidae, Cynipidae et Evaniidae. Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale (1911 - 1912). Resultats Scientifiques. Hymenopteres 1: 1 - 35. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 23834","Novitzky S. 1954. Beschreibung einer neuen Unterart von Calliceratiden an Dasyneura affinis. Pflanzenschutz Berichte 12: 54.","Marshall T. A. 1873. A catalogue of British Hymenoptera; Oxyura. The Entomological Society of London, London.","Petersen B. 1956. Hymnenoptera. The Zoology of Iceland 3 (49 - 50): 1 - 176.","Dessart P. 1972 c. Correzioni al \" Repertorio della flora e fauna vivente e fossile della Romagna \" di P. Zangheri. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 20: 39 - 44.","Zangheri P. 1969. Vespidae, Eumenidae, Masaridae. In: Repertorio Sistematico e Topografico della Flora e Fauna Vivente e Fossile della Romagna. Museo civico di Storia Naturale di Verona Memorie fouri serie 1: 1653 - 1670.","Brues C. T. 1906. Notes and descriptions of North American parasitic Hymenoptera. II. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Natural History Society 4: 143 - 52.","Kieffer J. J. 1914 b. Notes biologiques sur quelques proctotrypides. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France 1914: 210 - 211. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24319","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Szelenyi G. 1939. Revision einer Thomsonschen Typen der Gattung Calliceras Nees (Hym. Proct.). Zoologischer Anzeiger 126: 82 - 89.","Kelner-Pillault S. 1958. Catalogue de quelques types d'Hymenopteres provenant de la collection de l'Abbe Kieffer. Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 2 eme Serie 30 (3): 146 - 152.","Masner L. 1965. The types of Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) in the British Museum (Natural History) and in the Hope Department of Entomology (Oxford). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology Series Supplement 1: 1 - 154.","Dessart P. 1964. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (IV). Trois Ceraphronidae parasites de la cecidomyie du colza: Dasyneura brassicae (Winnerz), en France. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 100: 109 - 130.","Hellen W. 1966. Die Ceraphroniden Finnlands (Hymenoptera Proctotrupoidea). Fauna Fennica 20: 1 - 45.","Alekseev V. N. 1978. Superfamily Ceraphronoidea. In: Medvedev G. S. (ed.) Determination of Insects of the European Portion of the USSR 3 (2): 1213 - 1257.","Kieffer J. J. 1913 a. Description de nouveaux microhymenopteres. Broteria 11: 169 - 198. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24317","Notton D. G. 2014. A catalogue of the types of Diapriinae (Hymenoptera, Diapriidae) at the Natural History Museum, London. European Journal of Taxonomy 75: 1 - 123. https: // doi. org / 10.5852 / ejt. 2014.75","Johnson N. F. & Musetti L. 2004. Catalog of the systematic literature of the superfamily Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera). Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 33: 1 - 149.","Miko I. 2012 a. CLSM Volume Rendered Media File Showing the Male Genitalia of Aphanogmus abdominalis, Ventral View (PSUCIM _ 3120). figshare. https: // doi. org / 10.6084 / m 9. figshare. 100875. v 2","Miko I. 2012 b. CLSM Volume Rendered Media File Showing the Male Genitalia of Aphanogmus abdominalis, Dorsal View (PSUCIM _ 2140). figshare. https: // doi. org / 10.6084 / m 9. figshare. 100619. v 2.","Miko I., Masner L., Johannes E., Yoder M. J. & Deans A. R. 2013. Male terminalia of Ceraphronoidea: morphological diversity in an otherwise monotonous taxon. Insect Systematics & Evolution 44 (3 - 4): 261 - 347. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 1876312 X- 04402002","Kieffer J. J. 1907 a. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (1): 1 - 144. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24299"]}

Ceraphron alticola Kieffer, 1913 Fig. 9 Ceraphron alticola Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 13, ♀. MNHN. Keyed. Calliceras alticola ��� Kieffer 1914c: 78, 103. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Ceraphron alticola ��� Risbec 1950: 552. Keyed. ������ Dessart 1966a: 20. Description; 1989: 230. Keyed. Material examined Syntype KENYA ��� ♀; ���Ma�� escarpment, �� Molo, altitude de 2.420 m., 2 d��cembre 1911, st. no 19��� (Kieffer 1913b: 13); MNHN EY25359, EY22427, EY22428. Distribution Afrotropical. Comments Kieffer (1913) described Ceraphron alticola from a female specimen or specimens, though this is the only type known for this species to date. At this point, we consider this specimen to be a syntype. There are no original locality or type labels with the specimen, though there is a note reading ��� Ceraphron alticola || Type 19 K.���. The same type number appears on the label for Aphanogmus fumipennis (vial MNHN EY25361), originally the type of Kieffer���s Ceraphron oriphilus. Dessart dissected this specimen in 1966 and made two microscope preparations (pr��p. no. 6505/183), one of the right antenna (MNHN EY22427) and one of the right forewing (MNHN EY22428). The specimens are circled in black to indicate their position on the slides. The rest of the female specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25359)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Mus��um national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on page 19, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Kieffer J. J. 1913 a. Description de nouveaux microhymenopteres. Broteria 11: 169 - 198. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24317","Kieffer J. J. 1913 b. Proctotrupidae, Cynipidae et Evaniidae. Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale (1911 - 1912). Resultats Scientifiques. Hymenopteres 1: 1 - 35. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 23834","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Risbec J. 1950. Contribution a l'etude des Proctotrupidae (Serphiidae). Proctotrupides de la Section technique d'Agriculture tropicale (A. O. F.) et Proctotrupides du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Afrique et Colonies francaises). Travaux du Laboratoire d'Entomologie du Secteur Soudanais de Recherches Agronomiques, Gouvernement Generale de l'Afrique Occidentale Francais.","Dessart P. 1966 a. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (XI). Revision des Ceraphronidae d'Afrique orientale decrits par l'Abbe Jaen-Jacques Kieffer. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 42: 1 - 30."]}

Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) Fig. 17 Ceraphron formiceti Erichson in Märkel, 1844: 265, ♂. ZMHB. Megaspilus Wasmanni Kieffer, 1904: 38, ♂, ♀. NHME, MNHN. Synonymized by Dessart (1975). Megaspilus antennalis Kieffer, 1904: 40, ♀. NHME. Synonymized by Dessart (1975). Megaspilus crassinervis var. testaceipes Kieffer, 1904: 40, ♀. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1975). Megaspilus lasiophilus Kieffer, 1905: 5, ♀. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1975). Conostigmus Tricolor Kieffer, 1907a: 140, ♀. MCSN. Synonymized by Dessart (1975). Conostigmus myrmecobia Kieffer, 1913a: 198, ♂. NHMUK. Synonymized by Dessart (1975). Conostigmus formicarum Kieffer, 1914a: 141, ♂, ♀. NHMUK. Synonymized by Dessart (1975). Conostigmus wasmanni nidorum Kieffer, 1914c: 205, ♂, ♀. Synonymized by Dessart (1975). Conostigmus Testaceipes – Kieffer 1907a: 134, 167. Description, generic transfer, change to species status. Conostigmus Wasmanni – Kieffer 1907b: 151, 160. Description, generic transfer. –– Maneval 1937: 6. Variation. Conostigmus Antennalis – Kieffer 1907b: 163. Description, generic transfer. Conostigmus Lasiophilus – Kieffer 1907b: 167. Description, generic transfer. Conostigmus Formiceti – Kieffer 1907b: 170. Description, generic transfer. Conostigmus testaceipes – Kieffer 1914c: 173, 177, 198. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). –– Alekseev 1978: 678, 679. Description. Conostigmus tricolor – Kieffer 1914c: 174, 201. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). –– Alekseev 1978: 678. Description. Conostigmus wasmanni – Kieffer 1914c: 175, 176. Keyed. –– Alekseev 1978: 679. Description. Conostigmus wasmanni wasmanni – Kieffer 1914c: 204. Description. –– Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). Conostigmus myrmecobius – Kieffer 1914c: 175, 207. Description, emendation, keyed. –– Masner 1965: 16. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Description, type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). Conostigmus formicarum – Kieffer 1914c: 176, 177, 209. Description, keyed. –– Masner 1965: 15. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). Conostigmus antennalis – Kieffer 1914c: 176, 210. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). –– Alekseev 1978: 678. Description. Conostigmus lasiophilus – Kieffer 1914c: 177, 211. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). Conostigmus formiceti – Kieffer 1914c: 213. Description. –– Dessart 1975: 56. Description, synonymy, type information. Megaspilus wasmanni – Kelner-Pillault 1958: 149. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 59, 61, 62. Description, lectotype designation. Ceraphron formiceti – Dessart 1972a: 236. Lectotype designation. Conostigmus wasmanni nidorum – Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844). Conostigmus wasmanni var. nidorum – Dessart 1975: 63. Type information. Material examined Paralectotype FRANCE • ♂, paralectotype of Megaspilus wasmanni; “PATRIE. Dans les colonies de Formica rufa a Exaeten, en Hollande, en mars et août” (Kieffer 1904: 39); MNHN EY25344. Distribution Palearctic. Comments Kieffer (1904) described Megaspilus wasmanni from a syntype series of males and females collected at several locations. The male specimen at the MNHN was collected in Leche, and was reportedly found at the university in Bitche where Kieffer used to teach and subsequently donated to the MNHN (Kelner-Pillault 1958). Dessart viewed the specimen in 1972 and determined it was a paralectotype of Megaspilus wasmanni, which he later published (Dessart 1975). The male specimen is point mounted (MNHN EY25344), with the ant it parasitized point mounted underneath it. The antennae, one fore wing, one hind wing, and several portions of the legs are missing. The abdomen is detached and glued to the point. There is a label from Dessart indicating that there was at least one slide preparation associated with the specimen (prép. no. 6605/253), but CT was unable to locate any corresponding slides at the MNHN. Several months later, MNHN collection manager Agnièle Touret-Alby was able to locate two slides, one of the male genitalia and one containing two legs and wings. The slides were originally borrowed with other material by Dessart.A colleague returned the bulk of the material to the MNHN after Dessart’s death, including the dried specimen but not the associated slides. Upon contact, the colleague generously located the slides and mailed them to the MNHN. Both slides were imaged by Agnièle Touret-Alby © MNHN., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 33-35, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Markel F. 1844. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der unter Ameisen lebenden Insekten. Zweites Stuck. Zeitschrift fur die Entomologie 5: 193 - 271.","Kieffer J. J. 1904. Nouveaux proctotrypides myrmecophiles. Bulletin de la Societe d'Histoire Naturelle de Metz 23: 31 - 58. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24240","Dessart P. 1975. Materiel typique des microhymenoptera myrmecophiles de la Collection Wasmann depose au Museum Wasmannianum a Maastricht (Pays-Bas). Publicaties van Het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg 24: 1 - 94.","Kieffer J. J. 1905. Ueber neue myrmekophile Hymenopteren. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 50: 1 - 10. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / mmnd. 19050500104","Kieffer J. J. 1907 a. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (1): 1 - 144. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24299","Kieffer J. J. 1913 a. Description de nouveaux microhymenopteres. Broteria 11: 169 - 198. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24317","Kieffer J. J. 1914 a. Description de deux nouveaux Hymenopteres myrmecophiles. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France 1914: 141. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24386","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Kieffer J. J. 1907 b. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (2): 145 - 288. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24300","Maneval H. 1937. Serphoidea de la faune belge. Bulletin du Musee royal d'Histoire naturelle de Belgique 13 (22): 1 - 28.","Alekseev V. N. 1978. Superfamily Ceraphronoidea. In: Medvedev G. S. (ed.) Determination of Insects of the European Portion of the USSR 3 (2): 1213 - 1257.","Masner L. 1965. The types of Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) in the British Museum (Natural History) and in the Hope Department of Entomology (Oxford). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology Series Supplement 1: 1 - 154.","Kelner-Pillault S. 1958. Catalogue de quelques types d'Hymenopteres provenant de la collection de l'Abbe Kieffer. Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 2 eme Serie 30 (3): 146 - 152.","Dessart P. 1972 a. A propos de quelques types d'anciennes especes de Megaspilidae (Hym. Ceraphronoidea). Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 108: 234 - 238."]}

Aphanogmus radialis Kieffer, 1907 Fig. 8 Aphanogmus Fasciipennis var. radialis Kieffer, 1907b: 199, ♀. MNHN. Aphanogmus radialis Kieffer, 1914c: 116, 118. Description, change to species status, keyed. ��� Szel��nyi 1940: 125. Keyed. Aphanogmus fasciipennis var. radialis ��� Kelner-Pillault 1958: 149. Type information. Material examined Holotype FRANCE ��� ♀; ���Bitche, en octobre��� (Kieffer, 1907b: 199); MNHN EY25347, EY22466, EY22467. Distribution Palearctic. Comments Thomson (1858: 305) described the species Aphanogmus fasciipennis from male and female specimens from Lund, and described a female variation from the same locality that differed in the following regard: ���antennarum basi pedibusque testaceis, abdomine. piceo.���. Kieffer (1907b: 199) keyed out the species and also described a female variation of his own with different coloration and antennal characters, collected from ���Bitche, en octobre���, which he named radialis. It is unclear whether the female variations described by Thomson and Kieffer are the same; though Kieffer���s variation was collected from a different locality than Thomson���s, it is described in a similar way, with a lighter coloration on the antenna, legs and abdomen. Kieffer (1914c) later changed his variation to species status. Kelner-Pillault (1958) reported a female found in Kieffer���s collection in Bitche, which was considered a holotype and donated to the MNHN. Dessart (1963a) redescribed Aphanogmus fasciipennis and briefly discussed the variation Thomson had described. However, the only specimen of the variation Dessart had viewed for this publication was missing from the mount except for a few tarsi, so he was unable to determine if it was actually a different species or not. Dessart did not view the holotype female specimen at the MNHN until 1966, according to the label he placed on the specimen. Dessart dissected the female specimen and made two slide mounts (pr��p. no. 6605/252), leaving the rest of the specimen on its point mount (MNHN EY25347). One slide contains the anterior left wing and posterior right wing (MNHN EY22466), while the other has the complete left antenna and fragments of the right antenna (MNHN EY22467). Though Dessart (1966a) discusses several of the MNHN specimens, this specimen is not one of them. It appears that Dessart dissected the specimen in 1966 but then left it out of the final publication. According to Johnson & Musetti (2004), Dessart never published any further papers discussing Aphanogmus fasciipennis or A. radialis. He did add a label to the holotype female at the MNHN commenting ���=A. fasc. f. typique!���, but he never officially synonymized it with Aphanogmus fasciipennis Thomson, 1858 (Johnson & Musetti 2004). While the original specimen bears a holotype label, Dessart did not add any holotype labels to his slide preparations: instead, he marked them with Kieffer���s original determination, Aphanogmus fasciipennis var. radialis. Genus Ceraphron Jurine, 1807, Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Mus��um national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 17-19, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Kieffer J. J. 1907 a. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (1): 1 - 144. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24299","Kieffer J. J. 1907 b. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (2): 145 - 288. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24300","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Szelenyi G. 1940. Die palaarktische Arten der Gattung Aphanogmus Thoms. (Hym. Proct.). Annales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 33: 122 - 136.","Kelner-Pillault S. 1958. Catalogue de quelques types d'Hymenopteres provenant de la collection de l'Abbe Kieffer. Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 2 eme Serie 30 (3): 146 - 152.","Thomson C. G. 1858. Sveriges Proctotruper. Tredje Gruppen Ceraphronini. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskapsakademiens Forhandlingar 15: 287 - 305.","Dessart P. 1963 a. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (II). Revision des Aphanogmus decrits par C. G. Thomson. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 99: 387 - 416.","Dessart P. 1966 a. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (XI). Revision des Ceraphronidae d'Afrique orientale decrits par l'Abbe Jaen-Jacques Kieffer. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 42: 1 - 30.","Johnson N. F. & Musetti L. 2004. Catalog of the systematic literature of the superfamily Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera). Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 33: 1 - 149."]}

Ceraphron naivashae Kieffer, 1913 Fig. 13 Ceraphron Naivashae Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 13, ♀. MNHN. Keyed. Calliceras naivashae – Kieffer 1914c: 78, 103. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Ceraphron naivashae – Risbec 1955: 552. Keyed. –– Dessart 1966a: 17, figs 22–24. Description, illustration; 1989: 233. Keyed. Material examined Holotype KENYA • ♀; “AFRIQUE ORIENTALE ANGLAISE: fond du Rift Valley, a Naivasha, station de l’Uganda railway et chef-lieu de province, sur les bords du lac de Naivasha, altitude de 1.900 m., st. no 14, 1er decembre 1911.” (Kieffer 1913b: 13); MNHN EY25360, EY22429 to EY22431. Distribution Afrotropical. Comments Kieffer (1913b) only described the female of this species, naming it for Naivasha, Africa, where it was collected. The female specimen at the MNHN is the only known specimen, which Dessart (1966a) considered as the holotype. Dessart (1966a) re-described the species from this female specimen and illustrated the wing and antennae. Risbec (1950) proposed that Ceraphron cavifrons could be the male matching the female of C. naivashae (or C. oriphilus or C. alticola), while Risbec (1953b) suggested that Ceraphron soavinae could be the male matching this species. Dessart (1966a) comments on Risbec’s musings, saying that neither species seemed to match Ceraphron naivashae from their descriptions, though he had not viewed the type of either at that point. We know that Dessart later viewed C. cavifrons, providing diagnostic characters for the species and distinguishing it from C. naivashae in his key (Dessart 1989). Dessart never found the type of C. soavinae; however, he noted that Risbec (1953b) had described the species as a type of Ceraphron without a median mesoscutal furrow. Since Dessart knew of only one Ceraphron species from America with a partially absent median mesoscutal groove and no Ceraphron species where it was completely missing, he thought that either Risbec had made a mistake or that the species was actually an Aphanogmus (Dessart 1989: 216). Dessart (1989) kept C. soavinae in his key, since he had not observed any specimens, but the key distinguishes it from C. naivashae, and it is highly unlikely that the male and female match. Dessart dissected the specimen and made three preparations (prep. no. 6505/ I81) of the right antenna (MNHN EY22429), left antenna (MNHN EY22430) and left wing (MNHN EY22431). The rest of the specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25360). It is uncertain when Dessart dissected the specimen: the year given on the slides is 1965, while the year written on his determination label on the specimen in ethanol is 1966. The specimen in ethanol does not have any locality labels associated with it, though it does bear a determination label from Kieffer reading “ Ceraphron Naivashae K || type 14”., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 25-27, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Kieffer J. J. 1913 a. Description de nouveaux microhymenopteres. Broteria 11: 169 - 198. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24317","Kieffer J. J. 1913 b. Proctotrupidae, Cynipidae et Evaniidae. Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale (1911 - 1912). Resultats Scientifiques. Hymenopteres 1: 1 - 35. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 23834","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Risbec J. 1955. Diaprinae et Ceraphroninae de Madagascar (Hym. Proctotrupidae). Revue Francaise d'Entomologie 22 (3): 205 - 221.","Dessart P. 1966 a. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (XI). Revision des Ceraphronidae d'Afrique orientale decrits par l'Abbe Jaen-Jacques Kieffer. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 42: 1 - 30.","Risbec J. 1950. Contribution a l'etude des Proctotrupidae (Serphiidae). Proctotrupides de la Section technique d'Agriculture tropicale (A. O. F.) et Proctotrupides du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Afrique et Colonies francaises). Travaux du Laboratoire d'Entomologie du Secteur Soudanais de Recherches Agronomiques, Gouvernement Generale de l'Afrique Occidentale Francais.","Risbec J. 1953 b. Proctotrupidae de Madagascar: especes recoltees par MR Paulian. Memoires de l'Institut Scientifique de Madagascar. Serie E: Entomologie 3: 313 - 348.","Dessart P. 1989. Considerations sur les especes africaines, au sud du Sahara, rapportees au genre Ceraphron Jurine, 1807. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 125: 213 - 235."]}

Conostigmus muesebecki (Dessart & Masner, 1965) Ecnomothorax muesebecki Dessart & Masner, 1965: 277, 287, ♂, ♀. USNM. Keyed. Material examined None (see Comments). Distribution Nearctic. Comments Johnson & Musetti (2004) report that the male and female type specimens of Ecnomothorax musebecki are deposited at the MNHN. However, this is a mistake in the catalog. These specimens are actually deposited in the National Museum of Natural History (USNM) in Washington, D.C., as specified in the original publication (Dessart & Masner 1965)., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on page 51, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Dessart P. & Masner L. 1965. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea (VII). Ecnomothorax, genre nouveau de Ceraphronidae Megaspilinae. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 101: 275 - 288.","Johnson N. F. & Musetti L. 2004. Catalog of the systematic literature of the superfamily Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera). Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 33: 1 - 149."]}

Dendrocerus remaudierei Dessart, 1974 Figs 24���25 Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) remaudierei Dessart, 1974: 76, ♀, ♂. IPCP, MNHN, MHNG, ISNB. Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) remaudierei ��� Alekseev 1978: 672, 674. Description. ������ Kiriyak 1978: 41. Keyed. ������ Alekseev & Radchenko 2001: 10, 11. Keyed. Dendrocerus remaudierei ��� Fergusson 1980: 301. Diagnosis. ������ Dessart & G��rdenfors 1985: 209. Keyed. Material examined Holotype FRANCE ��� ♂; ����� Sur Salix / 9 km E. Varaville /(Calvados) 16-IX-72 / Ecl. 21-X-1972: R��c. G. Remaudi��re�� et �� P. Dessart det. 1973/ Dendrocerus /remaudierei/sp. n.����� (Dessart 1974: 83); MNHN EY25335, EY22468, EY22469, EY22472. Allotype FRANCE ��� ♀; same data as for holotype; MNHN EY25336, EY22470, EY22471. Paratypes FRANCE ��� 2 ♂♂; same data as for holotype; MNHN EY25337, EY25338. Distribution Palearctic. Comments Dessart (1974) described this species from male and female specimens. The species was named after Dr. G. Remaudi��re, who reared the specimens from aphids. Dessart reported that the holotype, the allotype, one female paratype, and seven male paratypes were given to Dr. Remaudi��re at the IPCP: in addition, Dessart (1974) reports a male paratype and a female paratype deposited at the MHNG, and four additional female paratypes and four male paratypes at the ISNB. It appears that the specimens deposited at the IPCP were moved to the MNHN, likely following Dr. Remaudi��re���s retirement. CT found four specimens, including the holotype, the allotype and two male paratypes at the MNHN. CT contacted the IPCP but was told that the specimens are not there; it is uncertain what happened to the remaining six paratype specimens. The male holotype specimen has three associated microscope preparations (pr��p. no. 7301/191). One slide (MNHN EY22469) contains the male genitalia, which are in poor condition; the second (MNHN EY22468) contains the metasoma and fragments. The last slide (MNHN EY22472) with the right antenna is broken, with the pieces gathered together in an envelope. The remainder of the specimen is point mounted (MNHN EY25335). The female allotype is also point mounted (MNHN EY25336) and has two slide preparations (pr��p. no. 7301/194), with one slide containing the right fore and hind wings (MNHN EY22470) and the other slide containing the right antenna (MNHN EY22471). There are also two male paratypes that are point mounted (MNHN EY25337 and MNHN EY25338) and were not imaged., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Mus��um national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 43-46, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Dessart P. 1974. Complements a l'etude des Dendrocerus europeens (Hym. Ceraphronoidea Megaspilidae). Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France 110: 69 - 84.","Alekseev V. N. 1978. Superfamily Ceraphronoidea. In: Medvedev G. S. (ed.) Determination of Insects of the European Portion of the USSR 3 (2): 1213 - 1257.","Kiriyak I. G. 1978. [Species of the genus Dendrocerus (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea, Megaspilidae) - hyperparasites of flies in the USSR.] Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Moldavskoi SSR. Seriya Biologicheskikh i Khimicheskikh Nauk 1978 (6): 39 - 48. [in Russian.]","Alekseev V. N. & Radchenko T. D. 2001. Ceraphronoid wasps (Hymenoptera, Ceraphronoidea) of the fauna of the Ukraine. Communication 1. Vestnik Zoologii 35 (3): 3 - 16. http: // dspace. nbuv. gov. ua / handle / 123456789 / 9541","Fergusson N. D. M. 1980. A revision of the British species of Dendrocerus Ratzeburg (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea) with a review of their biology as aphid hyperparasites. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology Series 41 (4): 255 - 314. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 28549","Dessart P. & Gardenfors U. 1985. Dendrocerus paradoxus n. sp. et D. ulmicola n. sp. (Hym. Ceraphronoidea Megaspilidae), deux nouveaux hyperparasites palearctiques de pucerons. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 121: 197 - 211."]}

Ceraphron barbieri Dessart, 1975 Fig. 10 Ceraphron barbieri Dessart, 1975: 47, 50, ♂, ♀. ZMUC, ISNB, MNHN, MHNG. Keyed. Ceraphron (Allomicrops) barbieri ��� Dessart 1981a: 3. Subgeneric assignment. Material examined Allotype FRANCE ��� ♀; ��� Contre mur / dans la / maison, Dijon / 4���VIII���1973 / C. D���or. J. Barbier ��� (Dessart 1975: 49); MNHN EY25349, EY22449. Distribution Nearctic and palearctic. Comments Dessart described the species from three male and two female specimens. According to Dessart (1975), the male holotype and one male paratype are deposited at the Zoological Museum at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark (ZMUC), which was indicated in Johnson & Musetti (2004). However, missing from Johnson & Musetti (2004), there is another male paratype at the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium (ISNB), a female paratype in the Cl. B��suchet collection in the Mus��um d���Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland (MHNG), and a female allotype in the J. Barbier collection in the MNHN. The female allotype specimen is card mounted (MNHN EY25349), and there is one microscope preparation (pr��p. no. 7312/141) with the right antenna (MNHN EY22449). There are a few errors and inconsistencies in the original publication. Dessart (1975) gives the identifier used for the allotype specimen as ���N��7312/111���, but the actual number on both the specimens and the slides is N��7312/141. The label information given in the paper matches the specimen, although Dessart (1975: 49) reports an additional label saying ���Contre mur / dans la / maison��� which is missing from the actual specimen. Still, there is no doubt that this is the allotype specimen Dessart studied in describing Ceraphron barbieri., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Mus��um national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 20-22, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Dessart P. 1975. Materiel typique des microhymenoptera myrmecophiles de la Collection Wasmann depose au Museum Wasmannianum a Maastricht (Pays-Bas). Publicaties van Het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg 24: 1 - 94.","Dessart P. 1981 a. Definition de quelques sous-genres de Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Hymenoptera Ceraphronoidea Ceraphronidae). Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 53: 1 - 23.","Johnson N. F. & Musetti L. 2004. Catalog of the systematic literature of the superfamily Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera). Contributions of the American Entomological Institute 33: 1 - 149."]}

Aphanogmus origenus (Kieffer, 1913) Figs 6–7 Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 12, ♂, ♀. MNHN. Keyed. Calliceras origena – Kieffer, 1914c: 78, 102. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Ceraphron origenus – Risbec 1950: 552. Keyed. Aphanogmus origenus – Dessart 1966a: 10. Generic transfer, description, lectotype designation. Material examined Lectotype TANZANIA • ♀ of Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913, new combination Aphanogmus origenus in Dessart (1966a); “ Mont Kilimandjaro: lisiére supérieure de la forêt auprés du Bismarckhügel, entre 2.700 et 2.800 m. d’altitude, 2 avril 1912 (st. no 71)” (Kieffer 1913b: 12); MNHN EY22436, EY22437, EY25358. Paralectotypes TANZANIA: 2 ♀♀; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY25352 • 1 ♂, 1 ♀, syntypes of Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913, identified as Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY22435, EY25350 • 1 ♀; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY25357. Distribution Afrotropical. Comments This species was originally described as Ceraphron origenus by Kieffer (1913b) from a series of male and female specimens. According to Dessart (1966a), the original syntypic series consisted of five females and one male. However, upon reviewing the specimens himself, Dessart found that the six specimens actually belonged to three different Aphanogmus species (Dessart 1966a). Dessart identified the male and one female specimen as Aphanogmus fumipennis based on antennal characters and the male genitalia (Fig. 6). He made a slide preparation (prép. no. 6505/06) of the male metasoma and genitalia (MNHN EY22435), and appears to have left the remaining bleached fragments of the male in an ethanol vial with the female specimen (MNHN EY25350). In looking at the other syntypes, Dessart found that three of the remaining females belonged to the same species (Fig. 7 A–B). Rather than synonymize Ceraphron origenus with Aphanogmus fumipennis, he chose a lectotype and paratypes from these three females to represent a new combination, Aphanogmus origenus, then re-described the species and noted that the male is unknown (Dessart 1966a). He dissected the female lectotype and made two slide preparations (prép. no. 6504/261), with one slide containing the left antenna (MNHN EY22436), and the other containing the left fore wing and hind wing (MNHN EY22437). The rest of the female lectotype is stored in an ethanol vial (MNHN EY25358). Two female paralectotypes are stored together in another ethanol vial (MNHN EY25352). These two specimens were not imaged. The state of the last female paralectotype remains uncertain (Fig. 7C). Dessart (1966a: 11) provided the following comments: “également dépourvue de rebord périphérique au scutellum mais à antennes non massuées, représente sans doute une nouvelle espèce malheureusement en trop mauvais état pour être bien décrite”. Dessart determined that the specimen was an Aphanogmus and not a Ceraphron, and based on differences in the antenna and scutellum, thought that the specimen could represent a new species. However, he thought the specimen’s condition was too poor to describe a new species from. The specimen currently remains in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25357). None of the specimens have locality labels, though Dessart’s labels for ethanol specimens MNHN EY25358 and MNHN EY25350 quote a determination label from Kieffer that indicate “ Type 71”., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 14-17, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Kieffer J. J. 1913 a. Description de nouveaux microhymenopteres. Broteria 11: 169 - 198. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24317","Kieffer J. J. 1913 b. Proctotrupidae, Cynipidae et Evaniidae. Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale (1911 - 1912). Resultats Scientifiques. Hymenopteres 1: 1 - 35. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 23834","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219","Risbec J. 1950. Contribution a l'etude des Proctotrupidae (Serphiidae). Proctotrupides de la Section technique d'Agriculture tropicale (A. O. F.) et Proctotrupides du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Afrique et Colonies francaises). Travaux du Laboratoire d'Entomologie du Secteur Soudanais de Recherches Agronomiques, Gouvernement Generale de l'Afrique Occidentale Francais.","Dessart P. 1966 a. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea. (XI). Revision des Ceraphronidae d'Afrique orientale decrits par l'Abbe Jaen-Jacques Kieffer. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 42: 1 - 30.","Thomson C. G. 1858. Sveriges Proctotruper. Tredje Gruppen Ceraphronini. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskapsakademiens Forhandlingar 15: 287 - 305."]}

Conostigmus gestroi Kieffer, 1907 Fig. 28 Conostigmus Gestroi Kieffer, 1907b: 159, ♀. Conostigmus kaszabi Szabo, 1979: 89, ♀. HNHM. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1983). Conostigmus gestroi ��� Kieffer 1914c: 176, 208. Description, keyed. ������ Dessart 1983: 115. Synonymy. Conostigmus kaszabi ��� Dessart 1983: 115, 116. Junior synonym of Conostigmus gestroi Kieffer, 1907. Material examined FRANCE ��� 1 ♀; ���PATRIE. France: Maisons-Lafitte (De Gaulle), vari��t�� �� t��te chagrin��e et parsem��e de points tr��s distincts, flagellum mince, filiforme, hanches brun noir (Kieffer 1907b: 159); MNHN EY25345. Distribution Palearctic. Comments When Kieffer (1907b: 159) described the species Conostigmus gestroi from a female, he noted the existence of a ���vari��t�� �� t��te chagrin��e et parsem��e de points tr��s distincts, flagellum mince, filiforme, hanches brun noir, ��� collected from France at ���Maisons- Laffite (De Gaulle)���. Although the location of the holotype of the species is unknown, Dessart found a female specimen in the MNHN that was consistent with the variety Kieffer described. Dessart viewed and left a label on the specimen in 1973 considering it a ��� var. illeg.���. Though Dessart hesitantly synonymized Conostigmus kaszabi with C. gestroi (1983), this publication does not comment on the MNHN specimen or mention C. gestroi as a ��� var. illeg.��� The female specimen is card mounted (MNHN EY25345) and in good condition, with no pieces missing., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mik��, Istv��n & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Mus��um national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 50-51, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Kieffer J. J. 1907 a. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (1): 1 - 144. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24299","Kieffer J. J. 1907 b. Proctotrypidae (suite). Species des Hymenopteres d'Europe et d'Algerie 10 (2): 145 - 288. https: // doi. org / 10.5281 / zenodo. 24300","Szabo J. B. 1979. New species of the Mongolian proctotrupoid fauna (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea, Ceraphronidae, Diapriidae and Platygasteridae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, Rovartani Kozlemenyek, Series Nova 32 (1): 177 - 179.","Dessart P. 1983. Les Hymenopteres Ceraphronoidea du Mecsek: un coup de balai. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale Belge d'Entomologie 119: 111 - 122.","Kieffer J. J. 1914 c. Serphidae (= Proctotrupidae) et Calliceratidae (= Ceraphronidae). Das Tierreich 42. R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 1219"]}

Conostigmus grangeri (Dessart & Masner, 1965) Figs 18–19 Ecnomothorax grangeri Dessart & Masner, 1965: 283, 287, ♂, ♀. MNHN. Keyed. Conostigmus grangeri – Dessart & Cancemi 1987: 315, 323. Generic transfer . Material examined Holotype ALGERIA • ♀; “« Font. des Gazelles, Oran, 6-4-58, J. BARBIER» (6 avril 1958)” (Dessart & Masner 1987: 287); MNHN EY25339, EY22448. Allotype ALGERIA • ♂; “«Aïn Franin, Oran, 25-4-59, J. BARBIER»” (Dessart & Masner 1987: 287); MNHN EY25340, EY22444 to EY22447. Paratypes ALGERIA • 1 ♀;“« Le Portet, Oran, 15-3-59, J. BARBIER»” (Dessart & Masner 1987: 287); MNHN EY25341 • 1 ♂; same data as for preceding; MNHN EY25342. Distribution Palearctic. Comments Dessart & Masner (1965) described Ecnomothorax grangeri from two male and two female specimens, all of which are deposited at the MNHN. The genus Ecnomothorax Dessart & Masner, 1965 was later synonymized with Conostigmus by Dessart & Cancemi (1987). The female holotype is glued to cardstock (MNHN EY25339), with one slide preparation (prép. no.6501/104) of the right antenna in poor condition (MNHN EY22448). The male allotype is contained within a vial that is point mounted through the cork (MNHN EY25340). There are four associated slides (prép. no. 6501/103), including the left antenna (MNHN EY22446), the right anterior leg (MNHN EY22445), and the last few segments of the metasoma, the pedicel and F1–5 of the right antenna (MNHN EY22444). The fourth slide, containing the male genitalia (MNHN EY22447), is in such poor condition that it is not possible to actually view the genitalia. It is worth mentioning that the microscope preparation numbers given by Dessart & Cancemi (1987) do not match the actual preparation numbers given on the specimen. There is also a female (MNHN EY 25341) and male (MNHN EY 25342) paratype, both of which are glued to cardstock. Whole-body images were taken of the male paratype in place of the allotype. The female paratype was not imaged., Published as part of Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István & Deans, Andrew R., 2019, A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart, pp. 1-60 in European Journal of Taxonomy 502 on pages 35-37, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502, http://zenodo.org/record/2581898, {"references":["Dessart P. & Masner L. 1965. Contribution a l'etude des Hymenopteres Proctotrupoidea (VII). Ecnomothorax, genre nouveau de Ceraphronidae Megaspilinae. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 101: 275 - 288.","Dessart P. & Cancemi P. 1987. Tableau dichotomique des genres de Ceraphronoidea (Hymenoptera) avec commentaries et nouvelles especes. Frustula Entomologica 7 - 8: 307 - 372."]}

The majority of Ceraphronoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) species were described in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with most of these early descriptions relying on text alone. Few type specimens have been illustrated and even fewer have been photographed, posing a challenge to taxonomists working on the group today. Here, we attempt to remove the barriers obstructing Ceraphronoidea research by creating a photographic catalog of the type specimens present at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN) in Paris, France. We discuss the history of the ceraphronoid specimens present in the collection and provide comments on unpublished species notes from former Ceraphronoidea taxonomist Paul Dessart. We synonymize Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913 syn. nov. with Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae) based on the male genitalia morphology, body shape and presence of foveae on the median length of the mesoscutellum. We also report the discovery of the missing male holotype of Ceraphron testaceus (Risbec, 1953) (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae) and several potential types of Aphangomus aphidi (Risbec, 1955) (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae).