Search

The European grapevine moth (EGVM), Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), is one of the major concerns for vineyard managers in the Mediterranean area. It is a polyphagous moth, which develops on a wide variety of host plants, among which the spurge flax, Daphne gnidium (Thymelaeaceae), very likely represents its originary wild host plant. In this study, we investigated the parasitoid complex of L. botrana feeding on D. gnidium during a three-year sampling in a natural reserve in Tuscany, Italy, where this plant is extremely abundant while the grapevine is absent. A total of 24 species of parasitoids were obtained from eggs, larvae, and pupae of EGVM, belonging to 6 families of Hymenoptera and a family of Diptera. The ichneumonid wasp Campoplex capitator was the most abundant larval parasitoid. Four species of the genus Trichogramma were obtained from parasitized eggs during the first year of sampling, with a peak in the parasitisation during the EGVM 3rd generation. Some of the main EGVM parasitoids on spurge flax were also observed in vineyards, although a certain degree of redundancy was observed in the wild, due to several less frequent “satellite” species exploiting the same host. Overall, this research sheds light on the parasitoid community and dynamics of this important moth pest in a grapevine-free natural ecosystem, discussing the possible role of natural areas as ecological reservoirs of pest natural enemies.

Campoplex absitus sp. nov. Figs. 1���2 Material examined. Holotype: female, Shaanxi, Hanzhong Liubaxian, 20.VII.2013, Tu Binbin, No 201308253 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 1) holotype. Body length 4.5 mm, fore wing length 3.5 mm. Head. Antenna with 23 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.3�� longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 2E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 2E) granulose, slightly convex, apical margin almost truncated, thick medially. Malar space granulose, 0.45�� basal width of mandible. Mandible with a very weak lamella, upper tooth slightly longer than lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 2F) 1.2�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.8�� distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, mat, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 2G) granulose, notauli indistinct. Scutellum and metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 2B) granulose, weakly trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 2B) granulose. Propodeum (Fig. 2C) with anterior transverse carina far from base, area basalis triangular, long and narrow; area superomedia granulose, polished; area petiolaris rugose; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, slightly depressed; all carina distinctly developed; propodeal spiracle small and round. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 2A) areolet present and with a short stalk, emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0�� longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (75��). Hind wing with nervellus slightly inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.2. Legs. Hind femur 4.6�� longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 2H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 2.3�� longer than width of postpetiole. Postpetiole and second tergite granulose, mat. Second tergite 0.9�� as long as first tergite, 1.8�� longer than its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite 2.0�� its diameter. Third tergite 0.8�� longer than its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.8�� longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 2D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi, tegula, fore and mid trochanters and trochantellus, and hind trochantellus, yellow; scape and pedicel blackish brown; fore leg yellowish brown except coxa and telotarsus brown; mid leg yellowish brown except coxa and telotarsus brown, tibia apically infuscated; hind leg with coxa and trochanter black, femur, tibia subbasally and apically, tarsus from basal 0.7 on brown, remainder of hind leg whitish yellow; metasoma entirely black. Distribution. China (Shaanxi). Comparative diagnosis. This species is similar to C. taenius sp. nov., but differs from the latter by having interocellar distance 1.2�� ocello-ocular distance, propodeal anterior transverse carina far removed from base, fore wing external angles of second discal cell less acute (75��), and third metasomal tergite 0.8�� longer than its apical width. Etymology. Name derived from ���absitus��� (Latin for ���remote���), because its propodeal anterior transverse carina is far removed from base of propodeum., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 9-11, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939

Campoplex granulosus sp. nov. Figs. 35���36 Material examined. Holotype: female, Xinjiang, Kuchewuqia, 2.IX.2004, Tu Erxun, No 20060145 (ZJUH). Paratypes: 1 female, Hubei, Shennongjia, 27.VIII.1982, He Junhua, No 825746; 4 females, 3 males, Jilin, Dongliao, 17. VI.1988, Zhao Mingcheng, host: pupa of Coleophora dahurica, No 883937 (4), 883936 (3); 1 male, Jilin, Dongliao, 17.VII.1988, Nie Shenglong, No 860159; 1 male, Jilin, Tonghua, 1.VIII.1994, Lou Juxian, No 976672; 1 female, Neimeng, Baotou Wudangzhao, 21.VIII.2000, Ma Yun, No 200100557; 1 female, Shandong, Bowen, 6.IX.1984, No 879198; 1 female, Xinjiang, Afanti Duolangxiang, 31.VIII.2004, Tu Erxun, No 200601193; 1 female, 1male, Xinjiang, Badan Kuerli, 8.VIII.2001, Hu Hongying, No 20036790, 20036821; 1 female, Xinjiang, Bazhou, IX.1983, Song Meijie, No 833962; 1 female, Xinjiang, Fukang Jiuyunjie, 17.VIII.2004, Tu Erxun, No 200600762; 1 female, Xinjiang, Hetian Moyutuohula, 30.VIII.2004, Tu Erxun, No 200601145; 1 female, Xinjiang, Kuerle Awatixiang, 3.IX.2004, Tu Erxun, No 200601415; 1 female, Xinjiang, Maigaiti, 27.VIII.2004, Tu Erxun, No 200600937; 1 female, Xinjiang, Shachexian, 19.VII.1991, He Junhua, No 912987, 913031, 912991; 1 female, Xinjiang, Shule, Tazihongxiang, 26.VIII.2004, Tu Erxun, No 200600908; 4 females, 2 males, Xinjiang, Wulumuqi, 26.VIII.1987, Ma Qi, No 880068, 880128, 880133, 880136, 880129, 880130; 3 females, 2 males, Xinjiang, Wulumuqi, 3.VIII.2001, Hu Hongying, No 20036042, 20036031, 20036014, 20036022, 20036027; 1 female, Xinjiang, Yuli Talimuxiang, 4.IX.2004, Tu Erxun, No 200601451. Description. Female (Fig. 35) holotype. Body length 4.3 mm, fore wing length 3.5 mm. Head. Antenna with 24 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.2�� longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 36E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 36E) granulose, slightly convex, apical margin truncated, thick medially. Malar space granulose, 0.5�� basal width of mandible. Mandible with a very weak lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 36F) 1.5�� ocelloocular distance and 1.8�� distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, mat, swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, mat, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 36G) granulose, notauli indistinct. Scutellum and metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 36B) granulose, weakly trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 36B) granulose. Propodeum (Fig. 36C) with area basalis triangular, long and narrow; area superomedia granulose, mat; area petiolaris trans-striate; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, not depressed; all carina distinctly developed; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 36A) without areolet. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.1�� longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70��). Hind wing with nervellus vertical, intercepted at lower 0.25. Legs. Hind femur 4.0�� longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.55�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate, its teeth weak. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 36H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 2.5�� longer than width of postpetiole. Postpetiole and second tergite granulose, mat. Second tergite 0.7�� as long as first tergite, equal to its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite 1.5�� its diameter. Third tergite 0.9�� as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.4�� longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 36D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi, yellow; scape and pedicel brown; tegula whitish; fore and mid trochanter and trochantellus whitish yellow, telotarsus brownish; remainder of fore and mid legs orange yellow; hind coxa black, trochanter basally blackish brown, femur and tibia yellowish brown, extreme apex of femur infuscated, tibia infuscated subbasally and apically, tarsus blackish brown except basal 0.8 yellowish brown; first metasomal segment entirely black; second tergite except apical laterally, third tergite except apically, fourth to seventh segments except laterally, blackish brown; remainder of metasoma reddish brown. Variation. Antenna with 24���26 flagellomeres, fore wing areolet absent or present and with 3rs-m vein incomplete, length of second tergite of metasoma 1.0���1.6�� its apical width, scape and pedicel yellowish brown to blackish brown. Distribution. China (Hubei, Jilin, Neimenggu, Shandong, Xinjiang). Comparative diagnosis. This species is similar to C. lobatus sp. nov., but differs from the latter by having first flagellomere 1.2�� longer than second flagellomere, mesopleuron granulose, thyridium separated from basal margin of tergite by 1.5�� its diameter, mid and hind leg largely yellowish brown, and metasoma colour different. Etymology. Name derived from ���granosus��� (Latin for ���granular���), because its body sculpture is largely granulose., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 53-56, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939

Campoplex parassosae sp. nov. Figs. 57–58 Material examined. Holotype: female, Zhejiang, Anji Longwangshan, 11.IV.1999, Wu Hong, No 200011824 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 57) holotype. Body length 5.5 mm, fore wing length 4.0 mm. Head. Antenna with 29 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.1× longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 58E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 58E) sparsely punctate, mat, slightly convex, apical margin truncated, thick medially. Malar space granulose, 0.5× basal width of mandible. Mandible without lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 58F) equal to ocello-ocular distance and 1.9× distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina at mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose with sparse punctures dorsally, mat, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 58G) granulose, scutellum and metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 58B) granulose with sparse punctures, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron granulose. Propodeum (Fig. 58C) granulose; area basalis triangular, long and narrow; area superomedia granulose, long and narrow; area petiolaris trans-striate; area superomedia area confluent with area petiolaris, not depressed; medio-longitudinal carina and latero-longitudinal carina weak; propodeal spiracle small and round. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 58A) areolet present and without stalk, emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0× longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70°). Hind wing with nervellus inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.2. Legs. Hind femur 5.0× longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate basally. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 58H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, dorso-lateral carina present, with a shallow lateral groove. First tergite 3.1× longer than width of postpetiole. Postpetiole and second tergite granulose, subsequent tergites largely granulose. Second tergite 0.8× as long as first tergite, 1.6× longer than its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite 1.5× its diameter. Third tergite equal to its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.7× longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 58D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi, tegula, fore and mid trochanters and trochantellus, and hind trochantellus, whitish yellow; scape and pedicel blackish brown; all coxae blackish brown; fore and mid legs from trochantellus on yellowish brown except telotarsus brown; hind trochanter and femur blackish brown, tibia basally and apically infuscated, tarsus brown except basal tarsomere 0.8 yellowish brown; metasoma entirely black with apical segments slightly blackish brown. Distribution. China (Zhejiang). Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. pusillus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977 (now known as C. assosae Kittel, 2016), but differs from the latter by having apical margin of clypeus truncated, areolet present, and hind femur blackish brown. Etymology. Name derived from “par” (Greek for “near”), and the specific name “assosae”, because this new species is similar to C. assosae.

Campoplex liuae sp. nov. Figs. 41���42 Material examined. Holotype: female, Shanxi, Lishan Xiachuan, 25.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201208778 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 41) holotype. Body length 5.2 mm, fore wing length 3.8 mm. Head. Antenna with 31 flagellomeres; first flagellomere equal to the length of second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 42E) granulose-punctate. Clypeus (Fig. 42E) granulose with sparse punctures, slightly convex, apical margin almost truncated. Malar space granulose, 0.5�� basal width of mandible. Mandible with a weak lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 42F) 1.5�� ocello-ocular distance and 2.0�� distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina slightly above mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose-punctate dorsally, subpolished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 42G) granulose punctate. Scutellum punctate and rugose posteriorly. Metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 42B) punctate, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 42B) granulose-punctate, punctures smaller and sparser than that on mesopleuron. Propodeum (Fig. 42C) granulose; area basalis triangular with carina posteriorly emerged; area superomedia granulose; area petiolaris granulose medially, rugose laterally; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, slightly depressed; all carina strongly developed; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 42A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0�� longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a slightly distad of M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (60��). Hind wing with nervellus inclivous, intercepted at its middle. Legs. Hind femur 4.4�� longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.6�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate. Metasoma. Mat. First metasomal segment (Fig. 42H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove absent. First tergite 2.5�� longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.6�� as long as first tergite, 0.85�� its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite equal to its diameter. Third tergite 0.55�� as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.2�� longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 42D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible medially and palpi yellowish brown; antenna, scape and pedicel brown; tegula yellow; fore leg yellowish brown with coxa black and telotarsus brown; mid leg yellowish brown with coxa and telotarsus black, trochanter basally brown; hind leg with coxa and trochanter black, tarsus except basal tarsomere 0.8 brown, remainder of hind leg yellowish brown; metasoma with postpetiole, second to fourth tergites anteriorly and subsequent tergites laterally yellowish brown, remainder of metasoma black. Distribution. China (Shanxi). Comparative diagnosis. This species is similar to C. adustantennalis sp. nov., but differs from the latter by having first flagellomere as long as second flagellomere, malar space, vertex and metanotum granulose, propodeal area basalis triangular and emerged posteriorly, area superomedia without punctures, propodeal carina strong, hind tibia entirely yellowish brown, and the colour of metasoma different. Etymology. This species is named in honour of Prof. Zhen Liu, the collector of the holotype., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 62-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939

Campoplex exareola sp. nov. Figs. 27���28 Material examined. Holotype: female, Jilin, Changbaishan, 4.VIII.1994, Lou Juxian, No 951985 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 27) holotype. Body length 4.5 mm, fore wing length 3.6 mm. Head. Antenna with 24 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.25�� longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 28E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 28E) granulose, not convex, apical margin slightly arched and thick medially. Malar space granulose, 0.65�� basal width of mandible. Mandible with a very weak lamella basally, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 28F) 1.3�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.5�� distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished, swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina slightly above mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, subpolished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 28G) granulose, notauli absent. Scutellum granulose with sparse and minute punctures. Metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 28B) granulose with sparse and minute punctures, weakly trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 28B) granulose. Propodeum (Fig. 28C) with area basalis triangular, long and narrow; area superomedia finely granulose, subpolished; area petiolaris weakly rugose; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, slightly depressed; costula absent; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 28A) areolet absent. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0�� longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70��). Hind wing with nervellus slightly inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.25. Legs. Hind femur 4.6�� longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate basally, teeth very weak. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 28H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 2.5�� longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.7�� as long as first tergite, 1.1�� longer than its apical width; thyridium oval, its distance from basal margin of tergite 1.5�� its diameter. Third tergite 0.7�� as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 2.0�� longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 28D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi and tegula yellowish brown; scape and pedicel blackish brown; all trochantellus yellow; fore leg from trochantellus on yellowish brown, coxa, trochanter and telotarsus blackish brown; mid leg with extreme base of femur, tibia media-externally and basal 0.5 of tarsus yellow, remainder of mid leg brown; hind leg with base and middle of tibia and basal 0.5 of tarsus whitish yellow, remainder of hind leg black; metasoma entirely black. Distribution. China (Jilin). Comparative diagnosis. This species is similar to C. maurotrochanter sp. nov., but differs from the latter by having area petiolaris weakly rugose, propodeal median area slightly depressed, fore wing areolet absent, mid leg largely brown, and metasoma from third tergite on not compressed. Etymology. Name derived from ���ex-��� (Latin for ���out of���) and ���areola��� (Latin for ���small open space���), because its fore wing is without areolet., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 43-44, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939

Campoplex assosae Kittel, 2016 Figs. 71���72 Campoplex pusillus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977: 71���72. (preoccupied by Campoplex pusillus Ratzeburg, 1852) Campoplex assosae Kittel, 2016: 163���164. New name for Campoplex pusillus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977 Material examined. 1 female, Guangdong, Conghua Liuxihe, 13.IV.2002, Xu Zaifu, No 20026943; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 18. VI.1983, Ma Yun, No 831261; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 2.IX.1987, Fan Jinjiang, No 875704; 1 female, 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 21.VII.1987, Chen Xuexin, No 877351, 872444. Distribution. China (Guangdong, Taiwan, Zhejiang). Notes. This species is known as Campoplex pusillus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977, but this name is a junior homonym of Campoplex pusillus Ratzeburg, 1852. Therefore, it was renamed as C. assosae Kittel, 2016., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 101-103, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939, {"references":["Gupta, V. K. & Maheshwary, S. (1977) Ichneumonologia Orientalis, Part IV. The tribe Porizontini (= Campoplegini) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Oriental Insects Monograph, 5, 1 - 267."]}

Campoplex xizangensis sp. nov. Figs. 81–82 Material examined. Holotype: female, Xizang, Yangzhuoyongchuo, 15.VII.2015, 3048m, N29.79°, E93.91°, 15.VII.2015, Liu Zhen, No201409026 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 81) holotype. Body length 9.0 mm, fore wing length 6.2 mm. Head. Antenna with at least 30 flagellomeres (apical segments missing); first flagellomere 1.3× longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 82E) rugose-punctate. Clypeus (Fig. 82E) rugose-punctate, slightly convex, apical margin arched, blunt. Malar space nearly smooth, 0.5× basal width of mandible. Mandible with lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons rugose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 82F) 1.3× ocello-ocular distance and 1.7× distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina at mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum rugulose-punctate dorsally, mat, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 82G) granulosepunctate, becoming rugose in notaulic region. Scutellum granulose-punctate anteriorly, rugose posteriorly. Metanotum rugose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 82B) punctate, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny, rugose above mesopleural fovea. Metapleuron (Fig. 82B) rugose-punctate. Propodeum (Fig. 82C) with area basalis trapezoid; area superomedia rugulose, subpolished; area petiolaris trans-striate; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, with a moderately groove medially; all carinae developed; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 82A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0× longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a slightly distad of M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (60°). Hind wing with nervellus inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.1. Legs. Hind femur 5.0× longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.55× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 82H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove present. First tergite 2.8× longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.75× as long as first tergite, 1.3× longer than its apical width; thyridium oval, its distance from basal margin of tergite 2.0× its length. Third tergite 1.4× longer than its width. Metasoma from third tergite on strongly compressed. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 2.2× longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 82D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible medially yellowish brown; scape and pedicel blackish brown; tegula yellowish brown; fore leg entirely yellowish brown except coxa brown; mid leg yellowish brown except coxa and telotarsus brown; hind coxa black, trochanter, trochantellus, tibia basally and apically and tarsus blackish-brown, femur and tibia medially reddish brown; metasoma entirely black. Distribution. China (Xizang). Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. homonae Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977, but differs from the latter by having face and clypeus rugose-punctate, pronotum rugulosepunctate dorsally, prepectal carina without a notch-like constriction, areolet relatively large and higher than stalk, and mandible yellowish brown medially. Etymology. Name derived from the name of type locality of species.

Campoplex maurotrochanter sp. nov. Figs. 47–48 Material examined. Holotype: 1 female, Shaanxi, Ningshan Xunyangzhen, 6.VI.1998, Ma Yun, No 982824 (ZJUH). Paratypes: 1 female, Gansu, Wenxian Dianba, 16. VI. 1998, 900m, Ma Yun, No 982279; 1 female, Hebei, Zhangbei, 1981, Dai Junrong, No 820163; 1 female, Shaanxi, Huoditang Huodigou, 5. VI.1998, 1900m, Ma Yun, No 982683; 1 female, 1 male, Shaanxi, Qingling, 10. VI.1998, 1800m, Ma Yun, No 983990, 983977; 1 female, Shaanxi, Zhashui Niubeiliang, 15.VIII.2003, Tan Jiangli, No 201306781. Description. Female (Fig. 47) holotype. Body length 4.3 mm, fore wing length 3.4 mm. Head. Antenna with 27 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.25× longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 48E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 48E) granulose, slightly convex, apical margin arched and blunt. Malar space granulose, 0.7× basal width of mandible. Mandible with a very weak lamella basally, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 48F) 1.3× ocelloocular distance and 1.8× distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, subpolished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 48G) granulose, notauli indistinct. Scutellum granulose with sparse and minute punctures. Metanotum granulose-punctate. Mesopleuron (Fig. 48B) granulose-punctate, weakly trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 48B) granulose-punctate. Propodeum (Fig. 48C) with area basalis triangular, long and narrow; area superomedia finely granulose, subpolished; area petiolaris coarsely rugose; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, not depressed; all carina distinctly developed; propodeal spiracle small and round. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 48A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0× longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70°). Hind wing with nervellus inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.3. Legs. Hind femur 5.0× longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws nearly not pectinate, teeth very weak. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 48H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 3.0× longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.7× as long as first tergite, 1.2× longer than its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite 1.5× its diameter. Third tergite 0.9× as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.4× longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 48D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi, yellowish brown; scape and pedicel blackish brown; tegula whitish; all trochantellus yellow; fore leg from trochantellus on yellowish brown, coxa, trochanter and apical tarsus blackish brown; mid leg with coxa, trochanter and femur ventrally blackish brown, femur dorsally and tibia medially yellowish brown, tibia basally and apically and tarsus brown; hind coxa, trochanter, and femur black, tibia yellowish brown medially, tibia basally and apically, and tarsus brown; metasoma entirely black. Variation. Hind wing with nervellus intercepted at lower 0.3 or only slightly below middle; the specimen from Hebei province with metasoma from third tergite on not compressed. Male. The surface of body shinier than in female; propodeal carina stronger than in female; otherwise quite similar to female. Distribution. China (Gansu, Hebei, Shaanxi). Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. kalatopensis Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977, but differs from the latter by having malar space 0.5× basal width of mandible, mesopleuron granulose-punctate and with punctures dense, area petiolaris coarsely rugose, and fore and mid trochanters blackish brown. Etymology. Name derived from “mauros” (Latin for “dark”) and “trochanter” (Latin for “trochanter”), because all its trochanters are black.

Campoplex hei sp. nov. Figs. 39���40 Material examined. Holotype: female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan Xianrending, 1.VII.2001, 1520m, Piao Meihua, No 200105708 (ZJUH). Paratypes: 1 female, Fujian, Chongan Sangang, 5.XII.1989, Wang Jiashe, No 20008409; 1 female, Fujian, Sangang, 9.IV.1981, Wang Jiashe, No 854190; 1 female, 3 males, Guangdong, Dawuling, 3.X.2001, Xu Zaifu, No 20020470, 20020548, 20020478, 20020944; 15 females, 2 males, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Jinding, 12.VII.1993, Chen Xuexin, No 938313, 938830, 938139, 938683, 938665, 938684, 939315, 939340, 939328, 939330, 938319, 938803, 939342, 939341, 939345; 4 females, 2 males, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Huixiangpin, 13.VII.1993, Xu Zaifu, No 938254, 936290, 935870, 935855, 936038, 936286; 1 female, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Huixiangpin, 11.VII.1993, Yao Songlin, No 937220; 3 females, 1 male, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Huguosi, 1.VIII.2001, 1300m, Piao Meihua, No 200107681, 200108977, 200108787, 200108241; 1 female, Guizhou, Xishui Changqiangou, 29.IX.2000, Ma Yun, No 200102761; 1 female, Henan, Luanchuan Longyuwan, 13.VII.1996, Cai Pin, No 974761; 1 female, Henan, Ludai Honghe, 27. V.2000, Cai Ping, No 200101753; 1 female, Henan, Neixiangbao Tianman, 15.VII.1998, Chen Xuexin, No 988826; 1 female, Henan, Songxian Baiyunshan, 11���18.VII.1996, Cai Pin, No 972765; 1 female, Hubei, Shennongjia Muyuzhen, 26.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201206503; 1 female, Shaanxi, Liubaxian Shibandian, 19.VIII.2013, Tu Binbin, No 201310432; 1 female, Shaanxi, Qinling Niubeiliang, 11.VIII.2013, Tu Binbin, No 201305740; 1 female, Shaanxi, Zhouzhi, 26.VIII.2013, Tu Binbin, No 201309500, 201309495, 201309565; 1 female, Shandong, Junan, 8.VII.1987, Dong Yancai, No 875415; 1 female, Shanxi, Lishan Xiachuan, 26.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201206503; 1 female, Shanxi, Lishan Xiachuan, 26.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201206503; 1 female, 1 male, Sichuan, Daofu Luhuo, 5.VIII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201407160, 201407149; 1 female, Sichuan, Qingchengshan, 3.VIII.1980, He Junhua, No 802795; 1 female, Sichuan, Wolong Dengshenggou, 9.VIII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201401452; 2 females, Sichuan, Wolong Yinchanggou, 7.VIII.2013, Liuzhen, No 201409360, 201409316; 4 females 1 male, Sichuan, Xiaojinxian, 9.VIII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201404326, 201404310, 201404306, 201404287, 201404305; 2 females, Sichuan, Xichang, 17.VIII.1980, He Junhua, No 801820, 801830; 2 females, Xizang, Lasa, 15.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201406125, 201406117; 1 female, Xizang, Linzhi Bayizhen, 3.IX.2002, Lin Naiquan, No 20033340; 1 female, Xizang, Linzhi, 21.VIII.2003, Deji Meiduo, No 20034366; 1 female, Xizang, Linzhi, 21.VIII.2003, Deji Meiduo, No 20034366; 4 females, Xizang, Xiayadong, 19.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201400796, 201403484, 201400665, 201400086; 1 female, Xizang, Zhangmu, 27.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201400348; 1 female, Xizang, Zhangmu, 27.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201400348; 1 female, Yunnan, Kunming, 30.III.1981, He Junhua, No 811125; 1 female, Yunnan, Lijiang Wenbishan, 28. VI.2007, Sharkey, No 200804984; 1 female, Yunnan, Maguan, 6. VI.2018, Malaise trap, No 20180611; 1 female, Yunnan, Ruili Mengxiu, 2. V.1981, He Junhua, No 813124; 2 females, Yunnan, Xiaguan, 14. V.1981, He Junhua, No 810920, 810915; 1 female, Zhejiang, Anji Longwanshan, 11.IV.1999, Wu Hong, No 20001818; 1 male, Zhejiang, Hangzhou Yuhuangshan, 20.VII.2003, Wu Qiong, No 20057224; 1 female, Zhejiang, Kaihua Gutianshan, 18.VIII.2003, Yu Xiaoxia, No 20058661; 1 female, Zhejiang, Lishui Fengyangshan, 10.VIII.2003, Daiwu, No 20042897; 1 female, Zhejiang, Longquan Fengyangshan, 7.VIII.2003, No 20055739; 1 female, Zhejiang, Moganshan, 9.VIII.1984, Qian Mo, No 845807; 1 male, Zhejiang, Qingyuan Baishanzu, 13.IX.1993, Chen Hanlin, No 950037; 1 female, Zhejiang, Qingliangfeng, 21. V.2012, Yan Chengjin, No 201202502; 1 female, 1 male, Zhejiang, Qingyuan Baishanzu, 2.X.1993, Wu Hong, No 945628, 905659; 1 female, Zhejiang, Songyang, 15.VII.1989, He Junhua, No 894199; 15 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 25. VI.1984, Chen Xuexin, No 980615, 941824, 997265, 980053, 842593, 20038367, 877194, 872585, 873330, 872393, 872710, 872325, 872375, 872415, 872411; 5 females, 1 male, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 20.VII.1987, Lou Xiaoming, No 873712, 874330, 873844, 873794, 874293, 874286; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan Xianrending, 25.VII.2011, Song Shengnan, No 201101535; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan Xianrending, 30.VII.2003, Shi Min, No 20030634; 2 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan Xianrending, 25.VII.2011, Liu Zhen, No 201101877, 201101346; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan Xianrending, 29.VII.2003, Wu Qiong, No 20040044; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan Xianrending, 2.VII.2000, Ma Yun, No 200103977; 1 male, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 12. VI.1993, Ma Yun, No 934410; 1 female, 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, No 882753, 882709; 3 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan Xianrending, 1.VII.2001, 1520m, Piao Meihua, No 200105179, 200105697, 200105929; 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 18. VI.1983, Shi Zuhua, No 830427; 4 females, 3 males, Zhejiang, Tianmushan Xianrending, VII.1998 ��� IV.1999, Zhao Mingshui, No 992423, 20057642, 994370, 998796, 995413, 994354, 200010647; 1 male, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 2.IX.1987, Fan Jinjiang, No 875634; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 2. VI.1990, He Junhua, No 905091; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 17. V.1988, Xu Weiliang, No 885597. Description. Female (Fig. 39) holotype. Body length 6.5 mm, fore wing length 5.0 mm. Head. Antenna with 29 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.2�� longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 40E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 40E) mat, slightly convex, apical margin slightly curved. Malar space granulose, 0.6�� basal width of mandible. Mandible with a very weak lamella. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 40F) 1.8�� ocello-ocular distance and 2.3�� distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple mat. Occipital carina evenly arched. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 40G), scutellum and metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 40B) granulose, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Propodeum (Fig. 40C) granulose; area basalis trapezoid; area superomedia granulose; area petiolaris trans-striate; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, not depressed medially; all carina strong with median carina under costulae weakly developed; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 40A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0�� longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70��). Hind wing with nervellus intercepted at lower 0.15 of its length. Legs. Hind femur 4.9�� longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 40H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, with dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. Postpetiole and second tergite granulose. Second tergite 0.62�� as long as first tergite, as long as its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite equal to its diameter. Third tergite 0.6�� as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.4�� longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 40D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi and tegula, extreme apex of fore and mid coxae, fore and mid trochanters, yellow; scape and pedicel blackish-brown; fore and mid coxae below, hind coxa and hind trochanter blackish-brown; remainder of fore and mid legs yellowish brown with telotarsus infuscated; remainder of hind leg yellowish brown with apex of hind tibia infuscated and tarsus from first tarsomere 0.8, brownish; metasoma entirely black. Variation. Malar space 0.5���0.8�� basal width of mandible; interocellar distance 0.8���1.8�� ocello-ocular distance; propodeal carina with medio-longitudinal carina under costula sometimes indistinct to absent; lateral longitudinal carina weak to strong; areolet with stalk short to long; hind femur yellowish brown to black; subbase of hind tibia not infuscated to infuscated. Distribution. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guizhou, Henan, Hubei, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xizang, Yunnan, Zhejiang). Comparative diagnosis. This species is similar to C. concretus sp. nov., but differs from the latter by having pronotum granulose dorsally, metanotum granulose, propodeal carinae not strongly developed, thyridium separated from basal margin of tergite by its diameter, and metasoma entirely black. Etymology. Named in honour of Prof. Jun-hua He for his great contribution to the knowledge of Chinese Hymenoptera., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 58-60, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939

Campoplex confluentus sp. nov. Figs. 21–22 Material examined. Holotype: female, Liaoning, Shenyang, VI–VII.1995, Lou Juxian, No 961003 (ZJUH). Paratype: female, Liaoning, Shenyang, VI–VII.1995, Lou Juxian, No961043. Description. Female (Fig. 21) holotype. Body length 5.1 mm, fore wing length 4.3 mm. Head. Antenna with at least 25 flagellomeres (apical segments missing); first flagellomere 1.25× longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 22E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 22E) granulose with sparse punctures, slightly convex, apical margin slightly arched. Malar space granulose, 0.55× basal width of mandible. Mandible without lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 22F) 1.2× ocello-ocular distance and 1.5× distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, mat. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina at mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose with sparse punctures dorsally, mat, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 22G) granulose punctate. Scutellum granulose-punctate. Metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 22B) granulosepunctate, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 22B) granulose. Propodeum (Fig. 22C) granulose; area basalis confluent with area superomedia; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris; area petiolaris granulose-rugulose; all carina very weakly developed; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 22A) areolet absent. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.2× longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (65°). Hind wing with nervellus slightly inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.15. Legs. Hind femur 5.3× longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate. Metasoma. Mat. First metasomal segment (Fig. 22H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove absent. First tergite 2.6× longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.75× as long as first tergite, 1.0× as long as its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite equal to its diameter. Third tergite 0.8× as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.0× longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 22D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi and tegula, whitish yellow; scape and pedicel yellowish brown; fore and mid legs with coxa, trochanter and trochantellus whitish yellow, mid leg coxa basally weakly brown, remainder of fore and mid legs yellowish brown; hind leg coxa and trochanter black, trochantellus whitish-yellow, femur yellowish brown, tibia whitish yellow with apically infuscated, tarsus from basal 0.8 on brown, basal 0.8 yellowish brown; metasoma entirely black. Variation. Interocellar distance 1.2–1.5× distance between median and lateral ocelli; propodeal lateral carina absent to very weak; hind femur 5.3–5.7× longer than wide. Distribution. China (Liaoning). Comparative diagnosis. This species is similar to C. assosae Kittel, 2016, but differs from the latter by having interocellar distance 1.2× ocello-ocular distance, propodeal area basalis confluent with area superomedia, area petiolaris granulose-rugulose, hind wing with nervellus slightly inclivous, fore and mid legs coxa whitish yellow, and hind trochanter blackish brown. Etymology. Name derived from “confluus” (Latin for “confluent”), because its propodeal area basalis, area superomedia area and area petiolaris are confluent.

Campoplex strigatus sp. nov. Figs. 75–76 Material examined. Holotype: 1 female, Zhejiang, Hangzhou Nangaofeng, 5.VII.2003, Chen Xuexin, No 20056145 (ZJUH). Paratypes: 1 female, Zhejiang, Hangzhou Fengyangshan, 15. VI.2003, Wu Qiong, No 20056030; 1 female, Zhejiang, Hangzhou Wuyunshan, 3.X.2008, Tan Jiangli, No 20081723; 1 female, Heilongjiang, Jingpohu, 26.VIII.1995, Lou Juxian, No 962376; 1 female, Liaoning, Xiongyue, VII.1955, No 65031.6. Description. Female (Fig. 75) holotype. Body length 7.8 mm, fore wing length 5.5 mm. Head. Antenna with 37 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.4× longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 76E) rugose, weak laterally. Clypeus (Fig. 76E) granulose-punctate, convex, apical margin slightly arched. Malar space granulose, 0.5× basal width of mandible. Mandible with lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons rugose, median carina present. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 76F) 2.0× ocello-ocular distance and 2.0× distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, mat, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina at mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum punctate dorsally, subpolished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 76G) granulosepunctate, becoming rugose in notaulic region. Scutellum and metanotum rugose-punctate. Mesopleuron (Fig. 76B) rugose-punctate, trans-striate below tegula, striations extending to prepectal carina, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 76B) granulose-punctate, rugose ventrally. Propodeum (Fig. 76C) with area basalis trapezoid; area superomedia rugose; area petiolaris trans-striate; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, with a deep groove medially; all carina distinctly developed; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 76A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 1.8× longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70°). Hind wing with nervellus inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.1. Legs. Hind femur 4.6× longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 76G) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 3.0× longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.75× as long as first tergite, 1.4× longer than its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite 1.5× its diameter. Metasoma from third tergite on strongly compressed. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.8× longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 76D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth yellowish brown; scape and pedicel brown; tegula whitish yellow; fore leg entirely yellow except coxa basally and telotarsus brown; mid leg yellow except coxa and telotarsus brown; hind coxa blackish brown, trochanter, trochantellus, tibia basally and apically, tarsus except basal tarsomere 0.8 brown, femur reddish brown, tibia medially and basal tarsomere 0.8 yellowish brown; first tergite and second tergite except apically black, second tergite apically and third tergite apico-laterally reddish brown, remainder of metasoma brown. Variation. Second metasomal tergite 1.4–2.2× longer than its apical width; thyridium 1.5–3.0× its diameter separated from the base of second tergite; scape and pedicel yellowish-brown to brown. Distribution. China (Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Zhejiang). Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. sticticus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977, but differs from the latter by having pronotum punctate dorsally, metapleuron rugose-punctate, nervellus inclivous and intercepted at lower 0.1, and first metasomal segment without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. Etymology. Name derived from “strigis” (Latin for “groove”), because its propodeum has a deep groove medially.

Campoplex tanae sp. nov. Figs. 79–80 Material examined. Holotype: female, Shaanxi, Foping, Liangfengya, 30.VII.2013, Tan Jiangli, No 201303440 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 79) holotype. Body length 4.8 mm, fore wing length 3.2 mm. Head. Antenna with at least 18 flagellomeres (apical segments missing); first flagellomere 1.2× longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 80D) granulose, weak laterally. Clypeus (Fig. 80D) granulose, almost truncated apically. Malar space mat, 0.7× basal width of mandible. Mandible with a weak lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose-punctate, median carina present. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 80E) 1.0× ocello-ocular distance and 1.4× distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple nearly smooth, subpolished, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, subpolished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 80F) granulose, becoming rugose in notaulic area. Scutellum granulose, becoming rugose posteriorly. Metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 80B) granulose with sparse punctures, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron (Fig. 80B) granulose. Propodeum (Fig. 80C) with area basalis trapezoid; area superomedia granulose, subpolished; area petiolaris rugose; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, not depressed medially; median carina weakly developed under costula, becoming stronger posteriorly; latero-longitudinal carina absent; propodeal spiracle small and round. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 80A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 1.7× longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (60°). Hind wing with nervellus slightly inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.3. Legs. Hind femur 4.2× longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws nearly not pectinate, teeth very weak basally. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 80G) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 3.3× longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite as long as first tergite, 2.0× longer than its apical width; thyridium oval, its distance from basal margin of tergite 3.0× its diameter. Third tergite 1.4× longer than its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.4× longer than hind femur, ovipositor gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi and tegula yellowish brown; scape and pedicel blackish brown; fore and mid legs with trochanters, trochantellus and coxae apically yellow, coxae basally and apical tarsus brown, remainder of fore and mid legs yellowish brown; hind leg with coxa blackish brown, trochanter, trochantellus, tibia subbasally and apically infuscated, tarsus brown, remainder of hind leg yellowish brown; metasoma from third tergite on laterally yellowish brown, remainder of metasoma black. Distribution. China (Shaanxi). Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. manaliensis Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977, but differs from the latter by having face granulose, interocellar distance equal to ocello-ocular distance, area petiolaris rugose, and scape and pedicel blackish brown. Etymology. This species is named in honour of Prof. Jiangli Tan, the collector of the holotype.

Campoplex obtusoclypeus sp. nov. Figs. 53���54 Material examined. Holotype: female, Liaoning, Laotuding, 16.VII.2011, Zhao Kexin, No 201103248 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 53) holotype. Body length 6.4 mm, fore wing length 5.3 mm. Head. Antenna with 35 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.3�� longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 54E) granulose, weak laterally. Clypeus (Fig. 54E) granulose dorsally, smooth and shiny below, slightly convex, apical margin blunt, slightly arched. Malar space shiny, 0.4�� basal width of mandible. Mandible with a weak lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 54F) 0.8�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.4�� distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, polished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 54G) granulose. Scutellum and metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 54B) granulose, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny, rugulose above mesopleural fovea. Metapleuron (Fig. 54B) granulose. Propodeum (Fig. 54C) with area basalis trapezoid; area superomedia granulose; area petiolaris granulose-rugulose; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, slightly depressed; median and lateral longitudinal carinae absent; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 54A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0�� longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70��). Hind wing with nervellus slightly inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.1. Legs. Hind femur 4.6�� longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.57�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate basally, teeth very weak. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 54H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, dorso-lateral carina present, lateral groove absent. First tergite 2.5�� longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.8�� as long as first tergite, 1.4�� longer than its apical width; thyridium oval, its distance from basal margin of tergite 1.7�� its length. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.1�� longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 54D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi and tegula yellowish brown; scape and pedicel blackish brown; fore leg yellowish brown except coxa and telotarsus brown, trochanter and trochantellus yellow; mid leg yellowish brown except coxa, femur basal-ventrally and telotarsus brown, trochanter and trochantellus yellow; hind leg with extreme base of femur yellowish brown, tibia medially and basal tarsomere 0.6 whitish yellow, remainder of hind leg black; metasoma entirely black. Distribution. China (Liaoning). Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. collinus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977, but differs from the latter by having face granulose, interocellar distance 0.8�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.4�� distance between median and lateral ocelli, metapleuron granulose, and mid leg largely yellowish brown. Etymology. Name derived from ���obtusus��� (Latin for ���blunt���) and ���clypeus��� (Latin for ���clypeus���), because the apical margin of the clypeus is blunt., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 77-78, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939, {"references":["Gupta, V. K. & Maheshwary, S. (1977) Ichneumonologia Orientalis, Part IV. The tribe Porizontini (= Campoplegini) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Oriental Insects Monograph, 5, 1 - 267."]}

Campoplex densipunctatus sp. nov. Figs. 25���26 Material examined. Holotype: female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, VI.1983, Shi Zuhua, No 830388 (ZJUH). Description. Female (Fig. 25) holotype. Body length 6.0 mm, fore wing length 4.5mm. Head. Antenna with 32 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.3�� longer than second flagellomere. Face (Fig. 26E) granulose. Clypeus (Fig. 26E) with minute punctures, mat, slightly convex, apical margin widely arched, slightly thick medially. Malar space granulose, 0.7�� basal width of mandible. Mandible without lamella, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina present. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance (Fig. 26F) 1.75�� ocello-ocular distance and 2.3�� distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, mat. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina at mandible base. Mesosoma. Pronotum punctate dorsally, polished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum (Fig. 26G), scutellum and metanotum granulose. Mesopleuron (Fig. 26B) granulose-punctate, punctures dense and separated less than their diameter, trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron punctate, punctures sparser than that on mesopleuron. Propodeum (Fig. 26C) with area basalis trapezoid; area superomedia granulose; area petiolaris trans-striate; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, not depressed; all carina developed; propodeal spiracle small and oval. Wing. Fore wing (Fig. 26A) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0�� longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (60��). Hind wing with nervellus inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.3 of its length. Legs. Hind femur 4.7�� longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws pectinate. Metasoma. First metasomal segment (Fig. 26H) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 2.5�� length of width of postpetiole. Postpetiole and second tergite granulose, mat. Second tergite 0.8�� as long as first tergite, 1.3�� longer than its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite 2.0�� its diameter. Third tergite as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.5�� longer than hind femur, ovipositor (Fig. 26D) gradually upcurved. Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi, scape and pedicel in front, fore and mid legs entirely and tegula, yellow with femora and tibiae orange yellow; hind coxa black, trochanter blackish brown, trochantellus, femur and tibia yellowish brown, tibia infuscated at base and apex, tarsus brown; first metasomal segment entirely, second tergite entirely, third tergite except laterally, and remainder tergites dorso-medially, black; lateral surface of metasoma from third tergite on yellowish brown. Distribution. China (Zhejiang). Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. manaliensis Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977, but differs from the latter by having mesopleuron densely punctate, metapleuron punctate, median longitudinal and lateral longitudinal carinae distinctly developed, pronotum shiny dorsally, and lateral surface of metasoma from third tergite on yellowish brown. Etymology. Name derived from ���densus��� (Latin for ���dense���) and ���punctatus��� (Latin for ���punctate���), because its mesopleuron is densely punctate., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 41-43, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939, {"references":["Gupta, V. K. & Maheshwary, S. (1977) Ichneumonologia Orientalis, Part IV. The tribe Porizontini (= Campoplegini) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Oriental Insects Monograph, 5, 1 - 267."]}

Campoplex anatolus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977 Figs. 7���8 Campoplex anatolus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977: 76���77. Material examined. 1 female, Fujian, Jiangle Longqishan, 8.VII.1991, Liu Changming, No 969704; 1 female, Fujian, Jiangle Longqishan, 30.IX.1991, Liu Changming, No 20007360; 1 female, Fujian, Nanjing, 8.VII.1991, Liu Changming, No 20006264; 1 female, Fujian, Nanping, 22.IX.2002, Liu Jingxian, No 20025259; 4 females, Fujian, Wuyishan Huanggangshan, 14.VII.1994, Chen Xuexin, No 942697, 942699, 942675, 942693; 2 females, Fujian, Wuyishan Huanggangshan, 14.VII.1994, Ye Shufeng, No 943395, 943381, 943281; 1 female, Fujian, Wuyishan Huangganshan, 17.VII.1994, Xu Zaifu, No 943340; 1 female, Fujian, Wuyishan Tongmu, 16.VII.1994, Xu Zaifu, No 942904; 1 female, Fujian, Wuyishan Xingcunzhen, 17.IV.2009, Tan Jiangli, No 201603235; 1 female, Fujian, Wuyishan Xingcunzhen, 17.IV.2009, YPT, No 201605673; 1 female, Fujian, Wuyishan, 6.VIII.1983, He Junhua, No 832760; 1 female, Guangdong, Dawuling, 1.X.2001, Xu Zaifu, No 20020501; 1 female, Guangdong, Liuxihe Forest Park, 30.III.2003, Wang Yiping, No 20032563; 1 female, Guangdong, Yangchun Huatan, 3. V.2002, Xu Zaifu, No 20027762; 3 females, Guangxi, Jinxiu Dayaoshan, 12. VI.1982, He Junhua, No 822782, 822898, 823017; 1 female, 1 male, Guizhou, Daozhen Xiannvdong, 24.VIII.2004, Wei Shujun, No 201505839, 201405681; 4 females, 1 male, Guizhou, Daozhen Dashahe, 18.VIII.2004, Wu Qiong, No 201506131, 201505681; 4 females, 1 male, Guizhou, Daozhen Dashahe, 18.VIII.2004, Wu Qiong, No 201506131, 201505146, 201505144, 201504857, 201505043; 1 female, 3 males, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Huguosi, 3.VIII.2001, 1300m, Piao Meihua, No 200108680, 200108681, 200108702, 200107716; 1 female, Henan, Ludai Shizifeng, 24.VII.1996, Cai Ping, No 973323; 1 female, Hubei, Wufeng Houhe, 1.VII.1999, Bo Wenjun, No 200104478; 1 male, Hubei, Shennongjia Qianjiaping, 26.VIII.1982, 1700m, He Junhua, No 825449; 3 females, Jilin, Changchun, 23.VII.1992, Lou Juxian, No 961037, 961049, 951060; 2 females, Jilin, Longtanshan, 21.VII.1995, Lou Juxian, No 961734, 961817; 1 female, Liaoning, Laotuding, 16.VII.2011, Song Shengnan, No 201103622; 1 female, Liaoning, Shenyang National Forest Park, 17.VII.2011, Yan Chengjin, No 201103536; 1 female, 1 male, Shaanxi, Qingling Tiantaishan, 4.IX.1999, Chen Xuexin, No 991284, 991260; 1 female, Shandong, Taian Taishan, 20.VII.1996, Xu Weian, No 971794; 1 female, Shanxi, Lishan Xiachuan, 26.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201208949; 2 females, 1 male, Sichuan, Daofu Luhuo, 15.VIII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201407162, 201407194, 201407175; 1 female, 7 males, Xizang, Cangdu, 3.VII.2013, Liuzhen, No 201403810, 201403771, 201403763, 201403761, 201403800, 201403813, 201403826, 201403743; 1 female, Xizang, Naqu Naixian, 31.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201408816; 1 female, Xizang, Xiayadong, 19.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201400797; 2 females, Yunnan, Lvchun Fenshuiling, 25.VII.2003, Jiang Qian, No 20045747, 20045735; 7 females, 1 male, Yunnan, Maguan Bazhaizhen, VI.2018, Malaise trap, No 201806816, 201806817, 201806869, 201807092, 201806620, 201807063,201806907,201806709; 7females, Yunnan, Maguan Bojiaozhen, 3.IX.2017, Malaise trap, No 201807423, 201807278, 201807264, 201807253, 201807216, 201807336, 201807344; 3 females, Yunnan, Xishuangbanna, VI.2018, Malaise trap, No 201806432, 201806522, 201806040; 2 females, 1 male, Zhejiang, Anjishan, 21.VII.1995, Wu Hong, No 971279, 971564, 971081; 1 female, Zhejiang, Fengyangshan, 10.VIII.2003, 1650m, Dai Wu, No 20058438; 1 female, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 8.VII.2010, Dong Shuai; 1 female, Zhejiang, Linan Longtangshan, 29. V.2012, Tang Pu, No 201204821; 2females, Zhejiang, Lishui Fengyangshan, 9.VII.2003, Wu Qiong, No 200042330, 20042260; 1 female, Zhejiang, Lishui Fengyangshan, 27.VII.2007, Liu Jingxian, No 201801007; 1 female, Zhejiang, Longquan Fengyangshan, 7.VIII.2003, Liu Jingxian, No 20055719; 1 female, Zhejiang, Lishui Fengyangshan, 8.VIII.2003, 1933m, Ma Yun, No 20041444; 1 female, Zhejiang, Qingyuan Baishanzu, 13.VII.2003, 1856m, Yu Xiaoxia, No 20058545; 1 female, Zhejiang, Qingyuan Baishanzu, 18.VII.1994, Wu Hong, No 946822; 1 female, Zhejiang, Songyang, 18. V.1993, Chen Hanlin, No 964783; 4 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 1. V.1999, Zhao Mingshui, No 20002476, 20002469, 20002491, 20002097; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 13. VI.1998, Chen Xuexin, No 980664; 6 females, 1 male, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 25���27.VII.2011, Song Shengnan, No 201102373, 201102344, 201102350, 201102260, 201102062, 201101486, 201101552, 201101542; 8 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 1.VII.2001, Piao Meihua, 1520m, No 200105911, 200105632, 200105828, 200105240, 200105839, 200105456, 200105240, 200105839; 2 males, Zhejiang, Tianmushan Bingchuandashi, 28.VII.2011, Liu Zhen, No 201101581, 201101578; 4 females, 1 male, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 27.VII.2011, Liu Zhen, No 201101363, 201101345, 201101354, 20110183, 201102479; 22 females, 18 males, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 20���21.VII.1987, Lou Xiaoming, No 873913, 873909, 873907, 873906, 873888, 873868, 873858, 873862, 873863, 873864, 873838, 873806, 873636, 873652, 873790, 873887, 873885, 873878, 873876, 873870, 873895, 873875, 873916, 873914, 874386, 874378, 874340, 874337, 874143, 874108, 874153, 874158, 874302, 874319, 874320, 874321, 874323, 874332, 874333, 874335; 1 female, 2 males, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 2.IX.1987, Wang Beigeng, No 876455, 876630, 876594; 4 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 13. VI.1983, Ma Yun, No 830898, 830883, 830877, 830858; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 23. VI.1984, No 841886; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 17. V.1988, He Junhua, No 881073; 52 females, 15 males, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, VI.1984 ��� VI.1989, Chen Xuexin, No 872306, 877127, 872776, 878576, 872774, 872769, 872578, 872453, 872473, 872571, 830898, 830883, 830858, 830877, 876594, 876630, 872604, 872601, 877246, 877181, 872420, 872427, 872747, 872741, 872718, 872765, 872762, 872759, 872757, 872729, 972719, 872703, 872413, 872626, 873364, 872998, 873000, 873004, 873308, 872608, 872588, 872572, 872707, 872724, 872406, 872787, 872790, 872992, 872349, 873391, 873395, 842305, 842296, 872632, 873322, 873433, 873422, 845627, 873374, 873404, 873413, 873412, 873419, 891250, 891357, 891705, 891686, 891690, 891758, 882070, 882074, 882067, 891672; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 28.VII.2003, Chen Xuexin, No 20038983; 5 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, V.1988 ��� VI.1990, He Junhua, No 881072, 904410, 890337, 890341, 890349; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 11. VI.1993, Chen Xuexin, No 934921; 2 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 25.VII.2011, No 201500541, 201501021; 4 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, VI.1989, No 892788, 892817, 892764, 892749; 62 females, 11 males, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, V.1995 ��� VIII.1999, Zhao Mingshui, No 997178, 997183, 997023, 997142, 200010898, 992589, 994017, 994010, 994086, 994108, 994057, 992093, 992094, 992091, 995677, 994357, 995352, 992053, 992064, 996756, 992427, 992357, 995415, 992029, 992038, 992042, 992060, 992057, 992106, 992108, 20000792, 994039, 995403, 995735, 995380, 995381, 995409, 995431, 995546, 995553, 995560, 995563, 995784, 995565, 995564, 995573, 995574, 995577, 995670, 995674, 995354, 995776, 995791, 995793, 995795, 995801, 995828, 995707, 995705, 995683, 995699, 995681, 995691, 995679, 995697, 995722, 995718, 995726, 995729, 997149, 997167, 997157, 20003465; 3 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 18.VIII.1999, Ma Yun, No 997472, 997450, 997363; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 27.IV.1999, Zhao Mingshui, No 999634; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 30.VII.2003, Wu Qiong, No 20040770; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 27.VII.2003, Yu Xiaoxia, No 20038279; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 18.VIII.1999, Yang Yafen, No 997713; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 3.VII.2000, Li Weidi, No 200010417; 1female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 30.VII.2003, Shi Min, No 20040656; 9 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 17. V.1999, Fan Jinjiang, No 884261, 884248, 884282, 882245, 884247, 884240, 884256, 884311, 884087; 2 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 29.VII.1984, Guan Xiaojing, No 844465, 844334; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 6. VI.1989, Wang Beigeng, No 892783; 7 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, VI.1990, Lou Yonggen, No 900099, 900693, 900733, 900861, 900407, 900423, 900402; 5 females, 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 17. V.1988, Xu Weiliang, No 885647, 885742, 885872, 885628, 885919, 885578; 2 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 18.VI.1983, 2.VI.1990, Shi Zuhua, No 901859, 830420; 7 females, 2 males, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 17. V.1988, Lou Xiaoming, No 883126, 883116, 883104, 883131, 883141, 883660, 883662, 892421, 892426; 3 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 2���4. VI.1990, Wang Beigeng, No 903274, 903161, 903270; 5 females, 4 males, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 16. V.1988, No 882803, 882796, 882755, 882791, 882962, 882739, 882721, 882899, 882666; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 2.VII.2000, Ma Yun, No 200103516; 3 females, Xitianmushan, 2. VI.1990, Hu Haijun, No 901107, 901065, 901240; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 6. VI.1989, No 894934; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 29.VII.1984, Qian Ying, No 842965; 1 female, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 10.IX.1983, Xu Zhihong, No 833710; 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 30.VII.2003, Shi Min, No 20040719. Variation. Antenna with 32���35 flagellomeres; malar space 0.3���0.6�� basal width of mandible; interocellar distance (Fig. 8F) 1.4���1.7�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.6���2.0�� distance between median and lateral ocelli; mesopleuron (Fig. 8B) granulose to granulose-punctate; hind femur 5.0���5.4�� longer than wide; first tergite (Fig. 8H) 3.0���3.3�� longer than width of postpetiole; ovipositor sheath 1.7���2.1�� longer than hind femur; one specimen from Shenyang province with hind femur black. Distribution. China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Henan, Hubei, Jilin, Liaoning, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Taiwan, Xizang, Yunnan, Zhejiang); India, Myanmar, Nepal. Note. This species is reported from Taiwan (China) before, and this study indicated it is a widely distributed species in China., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 16-18, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939, {"references":["Gupta, V. K. & Maheshwary, S. (1977) Ichneumonologia Orientalis, Part IV. The tribe Porizontini (= Campoplegini) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Oriental Insects Monograph, 5, 1 - 267."]}

Campoplex oriens Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977 Figs. 55���56 Campoplex oriens Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977: 53���58. Material examined. 1 female, Anhui, Jiuhuashan, 8. VI. 2001, 640m, Du Yuzhou, No 200109232; 1 female, Chongqing, Jinfoshan, 18.VIII.2012, Huang Xinlei, No 201207843; 3 females, Fujian, Chongan Sangang, 5.XI.1989, Wang Jiashe, No 20007925, 20008016, 20008368; 1 female, Fujian, Dazhulan, 6.X.1991, Chen Xuexin, No 920308; 5 females, Fujian, Fuzhou, 11.IV.1991, Liu Changming, No 966417, 966406, 966420, 966457, 966425; 1 female, Fujian, Fuzhou Jinshan, 11.VIII.1988, Lin Xiaolin, No 20009260; 2 females, Fujian, Fuzhou, 23.XII.1989, Lin Naiquan, No 967495, 967438; 11 females, 5 males, Fujian, Jiangle Longqishan, 16.VII.1991, Liu Changming, No 20007003, 20006966, 20006738, 20006481, 20007107, 20006869, 20006758, 20006742, 20006926, 20006692, 20006642, 20006685, 20006688, 20008142, 20006701, 969616; 4 females, Fujian, Meihuashan, 23.VII.1988, He Junhua, Fan Jinjiang, No 886667, 887388, 886434, 887065; 4 females, 1 male, Fujian, Nanjing, V ���IX.1989, Liu Changming, No 20006193, 20006056, 20006135, 20006220, 20006235; 1 female, Fujian, Nanping Maodizhen, 22.IX.2002, Liu Jingxian, No 20025280; 1 female, Fujian, Nanping Xiqinzhen, 21.IX.2002, Li Fangfang, No 20025548; 1 female, Fujian, Nanping Xiqinzhen, 21.IX.2002, Fujian, Wuyishan, 18.IV.2009, Zeng Jie, No 201605336; 1 female, Fujian, Nanping Xiqinzhen, 21.IX.2002, Li Fangfang, 18.IV.2009, Zeng Jie, No 201605336, 201605341; 1 female, Fujian, Shanghang Meihuashan, 24.VII.1998, Huang Jian, No 20005029; 1 male, Fujian, Wuyishan, 22.VIII.2007, Xie Cuihong, No 20087216; 3 females, Fujian, Wuyishan, 15.IV.2009, Tan Jiangli, No 201602517, 201605020, 200900104; 2 males, Fujian, Wuyishan, 7.IX.1989, Wang Jiashe, No 964069, 964391; 2 males, Fujian, Wuyishan, 18.IV.2009, Zeng Jie, No 201605336, 201605341; 2 females, Fujian, Wuyishan Fengcunzhen, 20.IV.2009, Tan Jiangli, No 201605198, 201605725; 1 female, Fujian, Yongan Tianbaoyan, 15.VII.2001, Xu Zaifu, No 20020259; 1 female, Fujian, Zhangzhou, IV.1987, Lin Naiquan, No 984836; 1 male, Guangdong, Conghua, 13.IV.2002, Xu Zaifu, No 20027060; 1 male, Guangdong, Dinghushan Nature Reserve, 6.IV.2002, Xu Zaifu, No 20026494; 1 male, Guangdong, Nanling, 24.III. 2003, 600m, Yu Xiaoxia, No 20032194; 4 females, Guangdong, Nanling, 21���25.IV.2011, YPT, No 201803984, 201803526, 201803652, 201803902; 1 female, 2 males, Guangdong, Ruyuan Nanling, 8. V.2004, Xu Zaifu, No 201804661, 201804667, 201804496; 1 female, Guangdong, Shaoguan, 11. V.1992, Ma Yun, No 920899; 1 male, Guangdong, Yingde Shimentai, 28.III.2003, Wang Yiping, No 20032418; 2 females, Guangxi, Longsheng Huaping, 25. VI.1982, He Junhua, No 823270, 823494; 1 female, Guizhou, Daozhen Dashahe, 18.VIII.2004, Wu Qiong, No 201506354; 1 female, Guizhou, Daozhen Xiannvdong, 24.VIII.2004, Wei Shujun, No 201505802; 1 female, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Huixiangping, 11.VII.1993, Xu Zaifu, No 935662; 2 males, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Huixiangping, 29.VII.2001, 1700m, Ma Yun, No 200108059, 200108077; 3 females, Guizhou, Fanjinshan Huguosi, 3.VIII.2001, 1300m, Piao Meihua, No 200108791, 200107594, 200108766; 1 female, Guizhou, Guiyang, 21. V.1981, He Junhua, No 813428; 3 females, Guizhou, Guiyang Huaxi, 28. VI.1992, Luo Qinghuai, No 985611, 985265, 985312; 1 female, 2 male, Guizhou, Guiyang, 15.X.1983, He Junhua, No 834562, 834578, 834655; 1 female, Guizhou, Huishui, VII.1986, Chu Jiming, No 862286; 2 females, Guizhou, Mayanghe Wanjia, 27���30.IX.2007, Liu Jingxian, No 200708493, 200708455; 1 female, Guizhou, Xishui Changqiangou, 29.IX.2000, Ma Yun, No 200102801; 1 female, Hainan, Diaoluoshan, 28. V.2007, Liu Jingxian, No 200702951; 1 male, Henan, Neixiangbao Tianman, 15.VII.1998, 1800m, Ma Yun, No 986916; 1 male, Henan, Tongbaishan, 23. V.2000, Cai Ping, No 200102126; 1 female, Henan, Ludai Shizifeng, 24.VIII.1996, Cai Ping, No 973170; 1 female, 1 male, Heilongjiang, Yichun, VIII.1985, Jin Liyuan, No 853230, 864311; 9 females, 2 males, Jilin, Changbaishan, VIII.1993 ��� VIII.1994, Lou Juxian, No 976435, 976420, 976583, 976444, 976411, 976415, 951633, 976578, 951753, 951745, 951742; 1 female, Jilin, Changbaishan, 10.VIII.1977, He Junhua, No 771456; 1 female, 1 male, Jilin, Liaoyuan, 10.VIII.1990, Lou Juxian, No 977325; 2 females, 1 male, Jilin, Liaoyuan, 10.VIII.1990, Lou Juxian, No 977325, 977291, 200109641, 200109770, 200109816; 1 female, 1 male, Liaoning, Dalian, 5.IX.1992, Lou Juxian, No 976054, 976012; 1 male, Liaoning, Laotuding, 16.VII.2011, Zhao Kexin, No 201104428; 3 females, 1 male, Liaoning, Laotuding, 18.VII.2011, Yan Chenjin, No 201104362, 201104256, 201104411, 201104238; 1 female, Liaoning, Laotuding, 16.VII.2011, Song Shengnan, No 20103660; 1 female, 1 male, Liaoning, Shenyang, VI.1995, Lou Juxian, No 961023, 960958; 1 male, Hubei, Shennongjia Qianjiaping, 21. V.2012, Shi Kai, No 20124439; 2 females, Shaanxi, Qinling, 8. VI.1998, Ma Yun, No 983606, 983612; 2 females, Shandong, Boxing, 6.IX.1984, No 879198, 879197; 2 females, Shandong, Boxing, 1.VII.1988, Hou Xinpin, No 886929, 886931; 2 females, 3 males, Shandong, Taian, Taishan, 20. V.1996, Xu Weian, No 971695, 971766, 971775, 971763, 971749; 5 females, 2 males, Shandong, Wendeng, 12. VI.1988, Hou Shanjin, No 886957, 886955, 886951, 886960, 881425, 881427, 888958; 2 females, Shandong, Wendeng, 1.VII.1988, Hou Xinping, No 886929, 886931; 1 female, Shandong, Wendeng, 26. VI.1988, Wang Liwen, No 886934; 1 female, Shandong, Wendeng, 26. VI.1988, Wang Liwen, No 886934; 1 male, Shanxi, Lishan, 30.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201201230; 1 female, 2 males, Shanxi, Lishan Xiachuan, 23.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201206693, 201206841, 201208082; 1 female, 3 males, Shanxi, Lishan Xiachuan, 23.VII.2012, Liu Zhen, No 201206693, 201206841, 201201230, 201308082; 2 females, Shanxi, Qingling Tiantaishan, 8. VI.1998, Ma Yun, No 983606, 983612; 2 females, Shanxi, Qinling Tiantaishan, 8. VI.1998, Ma Yun, No 983606, 983612; 1 female, Shenyang, Dongling Forest Park, 14.VII.2011, Song Shengnan, No 20142728; 1 female, Shenyang Forest Park, 16.VII.2011, Yan Chengjin, No 201103684; 1 female, Shenyang, Dongling Forest Park, 14.VII.2011, Song Shengnan, No 201402728; 1 female, Shenyang, Dongling Forest Park, 16.VII.2011, Yan Chengjin, No 201103684; 1 female, Sichuan, Guanxian, 1.VIII.1980, He Junhua, No 803028; 1 male, Sichuan, Yinlong Yinchanggou, 7.VIII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201409073; 1 male, Xizang, Bomi, 9.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201405804; 1 female, Xizang, Bomi Pailong, 2370m, 5.XI.2007, Lin Naiquan, No 201200146; 1 female, Xizang, Xiayadong, 19.VII.2013, Liu Zhen, No 201400837; 1 male, Yunnan, Baoshan Baihualing, 12. V.2012, Li Wenliang, No 201201814; 1 female, Yunnan, Baoshan Gaoligongshan, 20.VII.2006, Zeng Jie, No 200907866; 1 female, Yunnan, Dali, 23. V.1996, Du Yuzhou, No 977499; 1 female, Yunnan, Jinghong, 14.IV.1981, He Junhua, No 811547; 1 male, Yunnan, Jingdong Wuliangshan, 23. V.2001, Bo Wenjun, No 20030383; 15 females, 23 males, Yunnan, Kunming, 17. V.1981, He Junhua, No 810757, 813307, 810764 (4), 810765, 813313 (3), 813316, 814254, 810774 (4), 813319, 813335, 811547, 813317, 813309, 813314, 813328, 813321, 813343, 813759, 813322, 813324, 813325, 813331, 813333, 810768, 810775, 810783, 810775, 810786, 810787, 810774; 1 female, Yunnan, Lijiang, 18.VIII.2003, Li Yanjing, No 20046068; 1 female, Yunnan, Lvchun, 25.VII.2003, Li Yanjing, No 20045692; 7 females, 16 males, Yunnan, Maguanxian Bazhaizhen, VI.2018, Malaise trap, No 201806583, 201806691, 201806835, 201806839, 201806938, 201806940, 201806800, 201806797, 201806691, 201806835, 201806839, 201806938, 201806940, 201806800, 201806797, 201806837, 201806853, 201806688, 201806966, 201806713, 201806734, 201806928, 201807121, 201806729, 201806724, 201806705, 201806900, 201806913, 201807086, 201806914; 5 females, 4 males, Yunnan, Maguanxian Bojiaozhen, 3.IV.2017, Malaise trap, No 201807230, 201807243, 201807381, 201807329, 201807273, 201807271, 201807274, 201807401, 201807370; 1 female, Yunnan, Qiaojia, HOST: Pseudaletia separate, No 811091; 1 male, Yunnan, Tengchong, 26.IV.1981, He Junhua, No 811991; 3 females, 1 male, Yunnan, Wenshan, 2017, Malaise trap, No 201802497, 201802251, 201802313, 201802504; 1 female, Yunnan, Wuhexiang, 10. V.2012, Liu Yuanye, No 201202121; 19 females, 9 males, Yunnan, Xishuangbanna, VI.2018, Malaise trap, No 20180854, 20181051, 20184885, 20180565, 20180521, 201801939, 201805308, 201805969, 201805179, 201806233, 20184822, 20180601, 20184955, 20184821, 20185011, 20180752, 20181025, 20180460, 20181045, 20180713, 20184748, 20184821, 20185011, 20180752, 20181025, 20180460, 20181045, 20180713, 20184748, 20180654, 201806495, 201806420, 201802169, 20180944, 201801917; 2 females, 2 males, Zhejiang, Anji Longwangshan, 16���20.VII.1995, Wu Hong, No 971168, 971083, 970229, 970214; 1 female, Zhejiang, Anji Longwangshan, 25. VI.1996, He Junhua, No 962801; 2 females, Zhejiang, Anji Longwangshan, 31.VIII.1993, Xu Zaifu, No 8310217, 8310082; 1 male, Zhejiang, Deqing Fatou, 27. V.1995, He Junhua, No 957285; 20 females, 3 males, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, VI.1980 ��� VII.1997, He Junhua, No 893564, 896940, 893515, 893483, 893513, 893485, 893397, 893461, 850488, 850489, 893387, 922143, 893404, 893588, 893398, 893430, 893432, 893438, 893439, 801523, 840966, 850976, 830221; 1 female, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 5. VI.1992, Chen Xuexin, No 922019; 1 male, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 24. VI.1989, Chen Xuexin, No 893313; 1 female, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 28. VI.1983, Shi Zuhua, No 831599; 1 male, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 1.X.1981, Sun Guoqing, No 815524; 1 male, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 11.VII.1985, Wang Hongxiang, No 872282; 1 male, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 31.VII.2003, Shi Min, No 20031952; 1 female, 2 males, Zhejiang, Hangzhou, 29. VI.2006, Zhang Hongying; 10 males, Zhejiang, Hangzhou Shaoniangong, 25.VII.2003, Ma Yun, No 20056427, 20056447, 20056454, 20056414, 20056452, 20056415, 20056421, 20056408, 20056410, 20056453; 1 female, 2 males, Zhejiang, Hangzhou Shaoniangong, 15.VII.2003, Li Fangfang, No 20056380, 20056381, 20056392; 2 males, Zhejiang, Jinyun, 7.X.1980, 9.VIII.1981, Li Sichun, No 820415, 820433; 2 females, 2 males, Zhejiang, Kaihua Gutianshan, 1.VII.2005, Chen Xuexin, No 200604341, 200604323, 20064316, 20064312; 1 male, Zhejiang, Kaihua Gutianshan, 18.VIII.2003, Yu Xiaoxia, No 20043853; 1 female, Zhejiang, Kaihua Gutianshan, 2.VII.2005, Wu Qiong, No 200602010; 1 female, 1 male, Zhejiang, Kaihua Gutianshan, 19.VII.1992, Chen Xuexin, No 923559, 923686; 1 male, Zhejiang, Lanxi Baisha, 8.VIII.1985, Chen Xuexin, No 852376; 1 female, Zhejiang, Linan Longtangshan, 29. V.2012, Tang Pu, No 201204945; 1 female, 1 male, Zhejiang, Linan Tianmushan, 11. VI.1983, Ye Xingqian, Wang Jianping, No 835539, 835445; 1 male, Zhejiang, Longyou, 25. V.1984, He Junhua, No 841449; 2 females, 2 males, Zhejiang, Longquan Fengyangshan, 10.VIII.2003, Liu Jingxian, No 201805097, 20055570, 20055735, 20055507; 1 male, Zhejiang, Longquan Fengyangshan, VIII.1982, Yu Deming, No 840365; 1 female, Zhejiang, Longquan Fengyangshan, 27.VII.2007, Liu Jingxian, No 201801076; 1 female, Zhejiang, Longquan Fengyangshan, 15.VII.1982, Chen Xuexin, No 826737; 1 male, Zhejiang, Moganshan, 11. VI.1992, Chen Xuexin, No 922582; 1 female, 1 male, Zhejiang, Qingyuan Baishanzu, 27.IX.1993, 20.VII.1994, Wu Hong, No 945557, 946952; 6 females, Zhejiang, Qingliangfeng, 21. V.2012, Yan Chengjin, No 201202455, 201202464, 201202440, 201202667, 201202652, 201202578; 3 males, Zhejiang, Quzhou Changzhu, 17. V.1985, He Junhua, No 850225, 850227, 850241; 1 female, Zhejiang, Songyang, 1.XI.1992, Chen Hanlin, No 934061; 4 females, 3 males, Zhejiang, Songyang, 15.VII.1989, He Junhua, No 895438, 894112, 894228, 894116, 894468, 894474, 894472; 1 male, Zhejiang, Suichang, X.1973, Huang Enyou, No 73063.20; 1 female, Zhejiang, Suichang Baimashan, 2. VI.1994, Chen Hanlin, No 941548; 2 males, Zhejiang, Taishun Wuyanling, 28.VII���5.VIII.2005, Liu Jingxian, No 200610226, 200610280; 1 female, 9 males, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 20��� 21.VII.1987, Lou Xiaoming, No 874327, 874326, 874380, 874312, 874334, 874309, 873874, 874387, 873765, 873783; 6 females, 2 males, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, VI.1983 ��� VI.1994, He Junhua, No 891124, 895578, 830624, 831881, 940841, 890902, 904938, 873874; 2 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 6. VI.1989, Chen Xiaoming, No 892423, 892397; 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 29.VII.2003, 1506m, Shi Min, No 20039518; 1 female, 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 8. VI.2003, Shi Min, No 20031948, 20031941; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 8.X.1982, Ma Yun, No 826131; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 2.IX.1987, Fan Jinjiang, No 875512; 2 females, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 6. VI.1989, No 892870, 892809; 5 females, 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, VII.1997 ��� VII.1999, No 998875, 20002567, 20001994, 20003632, 992095, 996655; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 26. V.2010, Malaise trap, No 201410248; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 25���29.VII.2011, YPT, No 201501495; 2 females, 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 2. VI.1990, Shi Zuhua, No 902141, 902135, 902036; 2 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 25.VII.2001, Liu Zhen, No 201101249, 201101873; 2 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 28.VII.2011, Liu Zhen, No 201101680, 201101632; 3 females, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 25.VII.2011, Song Shengnan, No 201101513, 201102007, 201101739; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 2. VI.1990, Lou Yonggen, No 900731; 1 male, Zhejiang, Xitianmushan, 18.VIII.1999, Yang Yafen, No 999798; 1 female, Zhejiang, Tianmushan, 1.VII.2010, Zhao Qichao; 1 female, Nepal, Danson Bokala, 12.VII.2014, Tu Binbin, No 201502354. Variation. Antenna with 35���39 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.1���1.3�� longer than second flagellomere; malar space 0.3���0.4�� basal width of mandible; interocellar distance (Fig. 56F) 1.1���1.3�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.2���1.7�� distance between median and lateral ocelli; mesopleuron (Fig. 56B) granulose to rugulose-punctate; median longitudinal groove (Fig. 56C) weakly trans-striate to strongly trans-striate; hind femur 4.7���5.1�� longer than wide; first tergite 3.2���3.8�� longer than width of postpetiole; ovipositor sheath approx. 1.3���1.7�� longer than hind femur; fore and mid coxa sometimes with basally brown; metasoma sometimes entirely black. Distribution. China (Anhui, Chongqing, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Henan, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Hubei, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Shenyang, Sichuan, Xizang, Yunnan, Zhejiang); India, Malaysia, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka. Remarks. This is first record from Nepal., Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 80-84, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939, {"references":["Gupta, V. K. & Maheshwary, S. (1977) Ichneumonologia Orientalis, Part IV. The tribe Porizontini (= Campoplegini) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Oriental Insects Monograph, 5, 1 - 267."]}

Key to species of Campoplex Gravenhorst from China 1. Face rugose to rugose-punctate (Fig. 66E); pronotum punctate, rugulose-punctate or rugose-punctate dorsally; metanotum rugose to rugose-punctate; mesopleuron punctate to rugose-punctate, punctures dense (Fig. 66B); propodeum strongly rugose, area superomedia rugulose to trans-striate (Fig. 66C)......................................................... 2 -. Face granulose to granulose-punctate (Fig. 2E), sometimes punctate; pronotum usually granulose to granulose-punctate dorsally, sometimes punctate dorsally, rarely rugulose or rugulose-punctate, never rugose; metanotum usually granulose; mesopleuron usually granulose, punctures sparse to dense (Fig. 2B); propodeum granulose to rugose, area superomedia usually granulose (Fig. 2C).................................................................................... 6 2. Clypeus rugose; malar space rugulose; epicnemial carina with a notch-like constriction near fore coxa; fore wing areolet small, shorter than stalk................................................................. C. homonae (Sonan, 1930) -. Clypeus without rugae (Fig. 66E; but rugose-punctate in C. xizangensis sp. nov.); malar space nearly smooth to granulose; epicnemial carina without a notch-like constriction near fore coxa; fore wing areolet large, longer than stalk............. 3 3. Clypeus punctate, truncated apically (Fig. 66E); mandible without lamella (Fig. 66E); occipital carina reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base; pronotum rugose-punctate dorsally; mesoscutum not rugose in notaulic region (Fig. 66G); propodeal median area not depressed (Fig. 66C); sixth and seventh metasomal tergites with emarginations medially................................................................................................ C. plicopunctatus sp. nov. -. Clypeus granulose-punctate or rugose-punctate, slightly arched to arched (Fig. 82E); mandible with lamella; occipital carina reaching hypostomal carina at mandible base; pronotum punctate to rugulose-punctate dorsally; mesoscutum rugose in notaulic region; propodeal median area moderately to deeply depressed; sixth and seventh metasomal tergites without emarginations medially............................................................................................ 4 4. Clypeus rugose-punctate (Fig. 82E); malar space nearly smooth; frons with median carina absent (Fig. 82E); interocellar distance 1.3�� ocello-ocular distance (Fig. 82F); pronotum rugulose-punctate dorsally; propodeal area superomedia rugulose (Fig. 82C)............................................................................. C. xizangensis sp. nov. -. Clypeus granulose-punctate (Fig. 76E); malar space granulose; frons with median carina present; interocellar distance 1.8���2.0�� ocello-ocular distance; pronotum punctate dorsally; propodeal area superomedia rugose to trans-rugose................. 5 5. Face rugose (Fig. 76E); scutellum rugose-punctate; mesopleuron rugose-punctate, striations extending to prepectal carina (Fig. 76B); latero-longitudinal carina present (Fig. 76C); first metasomal segment with dorso-lateral carina absent (Fig. 76H); second metasomal tergite apically and third tergite apico-laterally reddish brown......................... C. strigatus sp. nov. -. Face rugose-punctate (Fig. 70E); scutellum granulose-punctate anteriorly, rugose posteriorly; mesopleuron punctate, striations not extending to prepectal carina (Fig. 70B); latero-longitudinal carina absent (Fig. 70C); first metasomal segment with dorsolateral carina present (Fig. 70H); metasoma entirely black................................ C. pseudostrigatus sp. nov. 6. Propodeal medio-longitudinal carina widely diverging posteriorly and often weak to absent (Fig. 54C); area superomedia not well formed, sometimes carina stronger where propodeum strongly rugose to striate; otherwise weakly rugose to granulose..................................................................................................... 7 -. Propodeal medio-longitudinal carina distinct and not widely diverging posteriorly, parallel-sided or somewhat parallel-sided (Fig. 20C); junction between area superomedia and area petiolaris discernible and area superomedia well formed; propodeum always distinctly granulose............................................................................. 15 7. All propodeal carinae very weakly developed (Fig. 22C); area basalis confluent with area superomedia area (Fig. 22C); area petiolaris granulose-rugulose (Fig. 22C); propodeal median area flat (Fig. 22C); fore wing areolet absent (Fig. 22A)......................................................................................... C. confluentus sp. nov. -. At least some propodeal carinae distinctly developed (Fig. 54C); area basalis separated from area superomedia area; propodeal area petiolaris trans-striate or granulose (except C. obtusoclypeus sp. nov.); median area usually depressed; fore wing areolet present.............................................................................................. 8 8. Clypeus smooth and shiny below; interocellar distance approx. 0.8�� ocello-ocular distance (Fig. 54F); area petiolaris granulose-rugulose (Fig. 54C); propodeal median and lateral longitudinal carinae absent (Fig. 54C).... C. obtusoclypeus sp. nov. -. Clypeus entirely mat; interocellar distance 1.0���1.7�� ocello-ocular distance; area petiolaris trans-striate or granulose; propodeal median longitudinal carina absent to weakly developed under costula, but gradually stronger developed apically, lateral longitudinal carina absent or present.......................................................................... 9 9. Malar space 0.8�� basal width of mandible (Fig. 34E); latero-longitudinal carina absent (Fig. 34C); fore wing areolet without stalk (Fig. 34A); hind femur blackish brown (Fig. 33)....................................... C. grandicella sp. nov. -. Malar space 0.33���0.6�� basal width of mandible; latero-longitudinal carina usually present; fore wing areolet with stalk; hind femur yellowish brown to reddish brown (except C. angustaulacis sp. nov.)...................................... 10 10. Interocellar distance approx. 1.0�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.4�� distance between median and lateral ocelli (Fig. 64F); propodeal latero-longitudinal carina strongly developed (Fig. 64C); fore wing areolet emitting 2m-cu vein from its basal part (Fig. 64A)................................................................................ C. protenus sp. nov. -. Interocellar distance 0.8���1.7�� ocello-ocular distance and 1.3���2.5�� distance between median and lateral ocelli; latero-longitudinal carina absent to weakly developed; fore wing areolet emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part..................... 11 11. Propodeum nearly entirely granulose (Fig. 12C); propodeal median area broadly and shallowly depressed (Fig. 12C); area petiolaris granulose (Fig. 12C); second metasomal tergite 0.6���0.7�� as long as first tergite........... C. apacicarinatus sp. nov. -. Propodeum sculpture coarser, not entirely granulose; propodeal median area nearly flat to narrowly and deeply depressed; area petiolaris trans-striate; second metasomal tergite 0.8���0.9�� as long as first tergite.................................. 12 12. Mesopleuron and metapleuron strongly and densely granulose, as remainder of mesosoma, dull; propodeum granulose-rugose with a median groove................................................................................. 13 -. Mesopleuron and metapleuron weakly granulose, weaker than remainder of mesosoma; propodeum rugose to granulose-rugose, median area nearly flat........................................................................... 14 13. Interocellar distance approx. 2.5�� distance between median and lateral ocelli (Fig. 10F); mesopleuron granulose-punctate (Fig. 10B); propodeal median area deeply depressed (Fig. 10C); fore and mid coxae brown (Fig. 9); hind femur blackish brown (Fig. 9).............................................................................. C. angustaulacis sp. nov. -. Interocellar distance approx. 1.5�� distance between median and lateral ocelli (Fig. 56F); mesopleuron granulose to rugulosepunctate (Fig. 56B); propodeal median area moderately depressed (Fig. 56C); fore and mid coxae yellow (Fig. 55); hind femur yellowish brown (Fig. 55)............................................... C. oriens Maheshwary & Gupta, 1977 14. Face granulose medially and rugulose laterally; clypeus strongly granulose; propodeum area dentipara finely granulose; posterior transverse carina making an angle of 80�� with pleural carina................ C. chiuae Maheshwary & Gupta, 1977 -. Face finely granulose medially and mat laterally; clypeus mat granulose, with scattered punctures; propodeum area dentipara rugose; posterior transverse carina making an angle of 60�� with pleural carina................. C. sauteri (Uchida, 1932) 15. Face and mesoscutum finely punctate; temple punctate; second metasomal tergite punctate; scape and pedicel yellowish brown; hind femur black.............................................................. C. graphoritae (Uchida, 1942) -. Face and mesoscutum with different sculpture, not finely punctate; temple usually granulose; second metasomal tergite granulose; scape and pedicel yellowish brown to blackish brown; hind femur yellowish brown to black..................... 16 16. Length of body 3.0��� 4.5 mm; trans-striations under tegula usually weak; fore wing areolet absent or present with 3rs-m vein incomplete; tarsal claws pectinate and with very weakly developed teeth........................................ 17 -. Length of body 3.6���8.0 mm; trans-striations under tegula usually normally developed; fore wing areolet present; tarsal claws variable............................................................................................ 21 17. Propodeal area superomedia long and narrow; latero-longitudinal carina absent; area petiolaris trans-striate; nervellus intercepted little below middle............................................................................. 18 -. Propodeal area superomedia normally developed; latero-longitudinal carina present; area petiolaris trans-striate or not; nervellus intercepted at lower 0.1���0.3......................................................................... 19 18. Areolet absent (Fig. 72A); malar space approx. 0.6�� basal width of mandible (Fig. 72E); propodeal area superomedia incompletely formed (Fig. 72C); temple not swollen behind eyes (Fig. 72F); hind femur yellowish brown (Fig. 71)............................................................................................... C. assosae Kittel, 2016 -. Areolet present with 3rs-m vein incomplete; malar space approx. equal to basal width of mandible; area superomedia completely formed; temple swollen behind eyes; hind femur brownish............. C. pygmaeus Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977 19. Occipital carina reaching hypostomal carina at mandible base; external angles of second discal cell acute (60��) (Fig. 4A); hind wing with nervellus intercepted at lower 0.1 (Fig. 4A); tarsal claws not pectinate; first metasomal segment with dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove (Fig. 4H); second tergite approx. 3.0�� longer than its apical width............ C. acarus sp. nov. -. Occipital carina reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base; external angles of second discal cell acute (70��); hind wing with nervellus intercepted at lower 0.2���0.3; tarsal claws pectinate but teeth weak; first metasomal segment without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove; second tergite 1.0���1.1�� longer than its apical width.................................... 20 20. Propodeal area petiolaris weakly rugose (Fig. 28C); median area slightly depressed (Fig. 28C); costula absent (Fig. 28C); hind femur approx. 4.6�� longer than wide; hind femur black (Fig. 27); metasoma entirely black (Fig. 27)..... C. exareola sp. nov. -. Propodeal area petiolaris trans-striate (Fig. 36C); median area not depressed (Fig. 36C); costula present (Fig. 36C); hind femur approx. 4.0�� longer than wide; hind femur yellowish brown (Fig. 35); metasoma not entirely black (Fig. 35)................................................................................................ C. granulosus sp. nov. 21. Clypeus long, sharp apically (Fig. 46E); malar space 0.9�� basal width of mandible (Fig. 46E); temple swollen behind eyes (Fig. 46F); trans-striations below tegula short and weak (Fig. 46B); mesopleural fovea absent (Fig. 46B); area petiolaris granuloserugulose (Fig. 46C); medio-longitudinal carina developed below costulae and absent apically (Fig. 46C); fore wing areolet emitting 2m-cu from its middle (Fig. 46A); external angles of second discal cell vertical (Fig. 46A); hind wing with nervellus intercepted slightly below middle (Fig. 46A); sixth and seventh metasomal tergites with emarginations medially; tegula black (Fig. 46G)........................................................................ C. longiclypeus sp. nov. -. Clypeus short, usually not sharp apically; malar space less than 0.9�� basal width of mandible; temple swollen or not swollen behind eyes; trans-striations below tegula short and weak to long and strong; mesopleural fovea present; area petiolaris not granulose-rugulose; medio-longitudinal carina completely developed or weakly developed below costulae and gradually stronger apically; fore wing areolet usually emitting 2m-cu from its apical part; external angles of second discal cell acute; hind wing with nervellus usually intercepted below; sixth and seventh metasomal tergites usually without emarginations medially; tegula usually not black..................................................................................... 22 22. Clypeus finely granulose (Fig. 18E); area petiolaris granulose medially and rugose laterally (Fig. 18C); propodeal latero-longitudinal carina absent (Fig. 18C); fore wing areolet emitting 2m-cu from its basal part (Fig. 18A); metasoma from third tergite on strongly compressed............................................................... C. collucatus sp. nov. -. Clypeus granulose to punctate; area petiolaris not granulose medially and rugose laterally; propodeal latero-longitudinal carina present (except in C. tanae sp. nov.); fore wing areolet usually emitting 2m-cu from its apical part; metasoma from third tergite on moderately compressed or not compressed.............................................................. 23 23. Antenna with first flagellomere as long as second flagellomere; clypeus punctate; frons rugose-punctate (Fig. 62E); metanotum shallowly punctate; external angles of second discal cell acute (50��) (Fig. 62A); sixth and seventh metasomal tergites with weak emarginations medially............................................................... C. proportionis sp. nov. -. Antenna with first flagellomere usually longer than second flagellomere; clypeus granulose, granulose-punctate or punctate; frons granulose to rugose-punctate; metanotum granulose to rugose-punctate; external angles of second discal cell acute (60��� 75��); sixth and seventh metasomal tergites without emarginations medially (except in C. bazariae).................... 24 24. Intercocellar distance approx. 2.1�� ocello-ocular distance (Fig. 32F); occipital carina gradually narrowed dorsally; hind wing with nervellus intercepted above its middle (Fig. 32A); thyridium large; mandible except teeth black (Fig. 32E)........................................................................................... C. grandialphus sp. nov. -. Intercocellar distance 0.8���1.8�� ocello-ocular distance; occipital carina evenly arched; hind wing with nervellus intercepted at or below the middle; thyridium small; mandible except teeth yellowish brown.................................... 25 25. Malar space granulose-punctate (Fig. 6D); frons rugose-punctate; propodeal area petiolaris rugulose-punctate (Fig. 6C); antenna brown (Fig. 5).............................................................. C. adustantennalis sp. nov. -. Malar space, frons and propodeal area petiolaris with different sculpture; antenna black (except in C. liuae sp. nov.)...... 26 26. Body length 3.6���4.8 mm; clypeus with apical margin truncated or almost truncated; temple slightly swollen to swollen; hind femur 3.8���4.6�� longer than wide; tarsal claws pectinate with weakly developed teeth; thyridium separated from basal margin of tergite by its length................................................................................. 27 -. Body length 3.8���8.0 mm; clypeus with apical margin truncated to arched; temple not swollen; hind femur 4.0���5.0�� longer than wide; tarsal claws pectinate with weak to strong teeth; position of thyridium variable............................... 30 27. First flagellomere approx. as long as second flagellomere; pronotum rugulose dorsally; mesopleuron punctate (Fig. 44B); propodeal area superomedia smooth and shiny, weakly rugulose-granulose (Fig. 44C); propodeal latero-longitudinal carina weak (Fig. 44C); fore wing vein 1cu-a distad of M&RS by 0.2 of its length (Fig. 44A); third metasomal tergite as long as wide apically............................................................................... C. lobatus sp. nov. -. First flagellomere 1.2���1.4�� longer than second flagellomere; pronotum not rugulose dorsally; mesopleuron granulose, granulose-punctate or rugose-punctate; propodeal area superomedia mat, granulose; propodeal latero-longitudinal carina strong; fore wing vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS; third metasomal tergite 0.6���0.7�� as long as its apical width........................ 28 28. Malar space approx. 0.7�� basal width of mandible (Fig. 16E); mandible with upper tooth as long as its lower tooth (Fig. 16E); temple slightly swollen behind eyes (Fig. 16F); pronotum rugulose-punctate dorsally................ C. atricrus sp. nov. -. Malar space approx. 0.5�� basal width of mandible; mandible with upper tooth longer than its lower tooth; temple swollen behind eyes; pronotum granulose dorsally................................................................... 29 29. Mesoscutum and scutellum granulose-punctate (Fig. 24G); mesopleuron granulose-punctate (Fig. 24B); hind wing with nervellus inclivous (Fig. 24A); inner spur of hind tibia approx. 0.5�� as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus; dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove of first metasomal segment present (Fig. 24H); metasoma entirely black (Fig. 23); mid femur, Published as part of Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, pp. 1-121 in Zootaxa 5066 (1) on pages 4-8, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5066.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5653939, {"references":["Sonan, J. (1930) A few host-known Ichneumonidae found in Formosa (Hym.). Transactions of the Natural History Society of Formosa, 20, 137 - 144.","Gupta, V. K. & Maheshwary, S. (1977) Ichneumonologia Orientalis, Part IV. The tribe Porizontini (= Campoplegini) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Oriental Insects Monograph, 5, 1 - 267.","Uchida, T. (1932) H. Sauter's Formosa-Ausbeute. Ichneumonidae (Hym.). Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, 33, 133 - 222.","Uchida, T. (1942) Ichneumoniden Mandschukuos aus dem entomologischen Museum der kaiserlichen Hokkaido Universitaet. Insecta Matsumurana, 16, 107 - 146.","Kokujev, N. R. (1915) Ichneumonidea (Hym.) a clarissimis V. J. Roborowski et P. K. Kozlov annis 1894 - 1895 et 1900 - 1901 in China, Mongolia et Tibetia lecti 2. Ezhegodnik Zoologicheskago Muzeya, 19, 535 - 553."]}

Campoplex dubitator Horstmann, 1985 Figs 2D, 7C, 9C, 10C, 11 AC, 12B, 14C Campoplex dubitator Horstmann, 1985: 146–148. Material examined GERMANY • 4 ♀♀; ZSM. NETHERLANDS • 1 ♀; ZSM. Description Female MEASUREMENTS. Body length 7.7 mm; fore wing length 5.5 mm. HEAD. Face about 0.60–0.70 × as high as wide. Malar space 0.5–0.6 × width of mandibular base. Gena 0.8 × as long as eye (maximum width, seen laterally); temple about 0.7 × as long as eye (seen dorsally), weakly narrowed behind eye, imaginary lines connecting outer side of eye and temple intersect at the level of the scutellum. OOD 0.65 × distance between lateral ocelli. Mandibular teeth subequal. Clypeus 0.5 × as high as wide, weakly produced in profile medially, matt and coriaceous, its apical margin sharp and gently rounded. Face and frons granulate and matt. Vertex and temples coriaceous and subpolished. Flagellum in examined specimens with 36 segments, flagellomeres of apical quarter about as long as wide. MESOSOMA. Pronotum medio-ventrally with longitudinal striae, dorsally coriaceous. Epomia indistinct. Mesoscutum and scutellum granulate and matt, scutellum without lateral carinae. Mesopleuron coriaceous and matt, with shallow and scattered punctures, especially on antero-ventral half; speculum smooth, anteriorly with fine longitudinal striae. Epicnemial carina only slightly sinuate subventrally, ventrally slightly raised, in middle without notch and not produced into lobes. Metapleuron coriaceous and matt. Fore wing with areolet small and petiolate, 2m-cu beyond its middle; 1cu-a opposite M&RS. Hind wing with proximal abscissa of CU 5.5 × as long as cu-a, distal abscissa of CU unpigmented. Hind femur 4.5 × as long as its maximum width, the longer inner tibial spur about 0.5–0.6 × as long as hind basitarsus. Propodeum with area basalis rectangular, about 0.5 × as wide as area superomedia; area superomedia large, about 1.5 × as wide as long, coriaceous and matt, not depressed and open posteriorly. Area petiolaris very slightly depressed and with irregular transverse striae. Rim of propodeal spiracle and carina connecting propodeal spiracle to pleural carina normal. METASOMA. Postpetiole coriaceous. Metasomal tergite II 1.4 × as long as apically wide. Ovipositor ratio about 1.5. COLOUR. Black. Palps and tegulae yellowish-white. Mandibles (except black base and reddish teeth) and pedicel apically yellow. Scape and flagellum yellowish-brown, flagellum lighter distally. Pterostigma yellowish-brown. All coxae black, fore coxa yellow marked distally, all tibial spurs yellowish-white; fore and mid trochanters and trochantelli yellowish-red, fore and mid femora, tibiae and tarsi yellowishred. Hind trochanter and trochantellus brownish, hind femur red, hind tibia and tarsus yellowish-red, tibia with very small light spot at the base, very slightly brownish subbasally and apically. Metasoma and ovipositor sheath black., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on pages 22-24, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Horstmann K. 1985. Revision der mit difformis (Gmelin, 1790) verwandten westpalaarktischen Arten der Gattung Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna 6 (12): 129 - 163.","Aubert J-F. 1960 a. Descriptions preliminaires de quelques especes et sous-especes mediterraneenes de la famille des Ichneumonides. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de Mulhouse 1960 (September - October): 62 - 65.","Horstmann K. 2012. Revisionen von Schlupfwespen-Arten XVI (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Mitteilungen der Munchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft 102: 105 - 115.","Schmiedeknecht O. 1909. Opuscula Ichneumonologica. IV Band. Fasc. XXI - XXIII. Ophioninae: 1601 - 1840. Blankenburg, Thuringen."]}

1. Campoplex mutabilis mutabilis (Holmgren, 1860) (MZL). The specimens bear red labels specifying that the identification was made from comparison with Thomson’s material in Lund. We studied two females in Aubert’s collection and, after comparison with C. difformis in Horstmann’s collection, we think they are likely C. unicingulatus as they have the epicnemial carina evenly raised ventrally and submedially, propodeum with the area superomedia and area petiolaris only slightly depressed and with fine transverse striae starting from the base of the area petiolaris, and an ovipositor ratio of 1.5–1.6 (ovipositor ratio slightly exceeding that stated for C. unicingulatus). In our opinion, this misidentification could be the reason that led Aubert to reject Horstmann’s interpretation of mutabilis as a synonym of difformis., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on page 4, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836

3. Campoplex difformis sensu Aubert (MZL). This species does not belong to the difformis species group but it is C. deficiens Gravenhorst, 1829 sensu Horstmann. According to Horstmann’s collection, C. deficiens forms a group of its own, being characterized by the occipital carina in the ventral half not turned outwards, meeting the hypostomal carina at an acute angle at the base of the mandible; head and mesopleuron with strong punctures on a polished surface; propodeal carinae strong, with the area superomedia about 1.5 × as long as wide, open posteriorly and mostly striate; posterior margins of the female sixth and seventh metasomal tergites clearly concave (Horstmann 1979) (Figs 1, 2A–C)., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on page 5, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Gravenhorst J. L. C. 1829. Ichneumonologia Europaea. Pars III. Vratislaviae.","Horstmann K. 1979. Revision der von Kokujev beschriebenen Campopleginae-Arten (mit Teiltabellen der Gattungen Venturia Schrottky, Campoletis Forster und Diadegma Forster). Beitrage zur Entomologie 1: 195 - 199."]}

Notes on the identification of species of the Campoplex difformis group In his original boxes at the ZSM in Munich, Horstmann arranged the species of Campoplex into ten groups: borealis, continuus, difformis, discrepans, deficiens, faunus, fusciplica, melanostictus, spurius, and tumidulus groups. Of these, only five (borealis, continuus, difformis, discrepans, and melanostictus groups) have been defined by Horstmann in his works (1985, 2000, 2008). Horstmann (1985) provided a key to European species belonging to the continuus, difformis, discrepans, melanostictus and spurius groups (the last one included in the melanostictus group in Horstmann (1985), but separated in Horstmann’s original boxes), which can be distinguished from the other European species of the genus Campoplex in having the occipital carina in the ventral half turned outwards, meeting the hypostomal carina at a right angle at the base of the mandible (Fig. 2E–F). Even if the demarcation between these groups is often difficult (Horstmann 1985), species of the difformis group are characterized by the mesopleuron with scattered and shallow punctures on a coriaceous background (i.e., Figs 3C, 4A–B, 4D, 5, 8B, 11B, 15B); posterior margins of the female sixth and seventh metasomal tergites only very slightly concave (Fig. 2D); hind tibia yellowish to red-brown, seldom proximally and distally slightly darker, rarely proximally with a light spot (in C. helveticus Horstmann, 1985 and C. hercynicus Horstmann, 1985); hind femur red (with the exception of C. helveticus and C. nigricanae Horstmann, 1980, with the hind femur brown to black); and hind coxa black (except C. canariensis Horstmann, 1980 that has a red hind coxa). In the difformis group, a few species can easily be recognized by the peculiar shape of the epicnemial carina. In Campoplex melanostoma (Strobl, 1904) (syn. C. anterior Aubert, 1960) and C. punctulatus (Szépligeti, 1916), the epicnemial carina is subventrally abruptly turned towards the ventral hind corner of the pronotum, forming a sharp angled keel (Fig. 4A–C), while it is subventrally more or less straight in the other species of the group (Fig. 4D–E); in C. bilobus (Thomson, 1887) and C. hinziator Aubert, 1980, the epicnemial carina is ventrally raised and divided into two distinct lobes, thus with a clear notch in the middle separating the two parts (Fig. 5A); in C. hercynicus, the epicnemial carina is strongly raised ventrally, gently rounded and slightly notched in the middle, its width ventrally clearly greater than its width subventrally (Fig. 5B); in C. unicingulatus, the epicnemial carina is evenly raised ventrally and submedially, its width in the middle approximately as high as the width of the fore basitarsus, and not divided in the middle (Fig. 5C). Females of the remaining species can be separated on the basis of the ovipositor sheath ratio.The ovipositor ratio is less than 1.4 (usually significantly less) in Campoplex tibialis and related species (Fig. 6A), while it is 1.4 or more in species related to C. difformis. In C. restrictor Aubert, 1960 and C. striatus Horstmann, 1985, the temples are strongly narrowed behind the eyes: imaginary lines connecting the outer side of the eye and temple intersect at the level of the scutellar groove (Fig. 4F), while in species strictly related to C. difformis the temples are not so narrowed: imaginary lines connecting the outer side of the eye and temple intersect at the level of the scutellum or just behind it (Figs 4G, 7; with the only possible exception of C. corsicator stat. rev., that has imaginary lines connecting the outer side of the eye and temple intersecting at the level of the scutellar groove or just behind it). Since the revision of the difformis group by Horstmann (1985), two new species have been described, Campoplex ocellanae Horstmann, 1993 and C. formosanae Horstmann, 2012, and a third one, C. psilopterus Gravenhorst, 1829, was recognized as belonging to this group by Horstmann (2000). According to Horstmann (1993), the identification of Campoplex ocellanae in his key led to C. parvus Horstmann & Yu, 1999 (syn. C. minor Horstmann, 1985). Campoplex ocellanae can be inserted at couplet 26 in Horstmann’s key (1985) as follows: 26a.Temples slightly narrowed behind eyes, imaginary lines connecting outer side of eye and temple intersect at the base of the metasoma (Horstmann 1985: fig. 5). Area superomedia finely coriaceous, not wrinkled; area petiolaris anteriorly coriaceous, posteriorly finely striate; area superomedia and area petiolaris slightly depressed (Horstmann 1985: fig. 15). Body length about 4 mm............................................................................................ C. parvus Horstmann & Yu, 1999 – Temples comparatively more narrowed behind eyes, imaginary lines connecting outer side of eye and temple intersect behind the middle of the mesoscutum (Horstmann 1985: fig. 6; Horstmann 1993: fig. 4)................................................................................................................................... 26b 26b.Area superomedia and area petiolaris coriaceous and finely wrinkled; area petiolaris in addition with fine transverse wrinkles (Horstmann 1985: fig. 16). Body length about 6 mm................................................................................................. C. sulcatus Horstmann, 1985 – Area superomedia coriaceous and wrinkled only at the lateral margins; area petiolaris entirely and strongly striate, slightly depressed (Horstmann 1993: fig. 8). Body length about 5 mm................................................................................................. C. ocellanae Horstmann, 1993 Campoplex formosanae and C. psilopterus belong to the subgroup of closely related species, together with C. difformis, C. capitator, C. dubitator, and C. unicingulatus, which form a tricky complex of very similar species that are better characterized by their host association (Horstmann 2012). Campoplex psilopterus was described from a male by Gravenhorst (1829: 508), probably based on a specimen not completely pigmented (“Suspicor, hoc individuum, coloribus nondum perfecte temperatis, necatum esse”). The species was then cited and redescribed by Ratzeburg (1852: 86), who also described the female and reported a record of Siebold of a male and a female obtained from a species of Psychidae. According to Horstmann (2000), C. psilopterus is near to C. capitator, but it differs in its smaller body size (about 4 mm), slightly narrower face and area petiolaris clearly depressed. With respect to Gravenhorst’s description, Ratzeburg added that the female ovipositor is ¼– 1 / 5 as long as the metasoma. Unfortunately, the original descriptions of Gravenhorst and Ratzeburg and the short note of Horstmann based on the male in Gravenhorst’s collection do not allow this species to be unequivocally characterized. Thus – following Taxapad (Yu et al. 2016) – C. psilopterus is treated here as species inquirenda. Campoplex formosanae was reared from the cherry-bark tortrix, Enarmonia formosana (Scopoli, 1763), in Germany. The species was first treated by authors as C. dubitator (in Tanigoshi & Starý 2003; Jenner et al. 2004, 2005, 2013; Jenner & Kuhlmann 2006; Hunt & Kuhlmann 2007; Hunt et al. 2008; Jenner & Roitberg 2009), while molecular-based studies indicated that it might be conspecific with C. capitator, as molecular differences between the two species were not significant (Hunt & Kuhlmann 2007; Hunt et al. 2008). However, laboratory tests showed that C. formosanae was unable to develop in Lobesia botrana, the selected host species of C. capitator, and small but constant morphological characters can be found to support C. formosanae as a species distinct from C. capitator and related species (Hunt et al. 2008; Jenner et al. 2013). According to Horstmann (1985, 2012), Campoplex formosanae has morphologically intermediate characters between C. dubitator and C. unicingulatus (Horstmann 2012). It differs from C. unicingulatus in having ovipositor sheath ratio 1.7–1.8 the (Fig. 8A) (ovipositor ratio 1.4–1.5 in C. unicingulatus) and the epicnemial carina slightly raised ventrally (at most as high as half the width of the fore basitarsus, Fig. 8B) (strongly raised ventrally, about as high as the width of the fore basitarsus in C. unicingulatus). He reports also that flagellar segments in the apical quarter of C. formosanae are “as long as or slightly shorter than wide” (Horstmann 2012), but actually flagellar segments in C. formosanae identified by Horstmann himself in NMS seem to be relatively longer than those of C. unicingulatus in Horstmann’s collection (Fig. 9D–E). It differs from C. dubitator in having the area petiolaris clearly depressed and almost entirely covered by transverse wrinkles, including the anterior half (Figs 8C, 10D and Horstmann 2012: fig. 7) (only granulate and with no transverse wrinkles in the anterior half and with fine transverse wrinkles in the posterior half in C. dubitator; see Figs 10C, 11C and Horstmann 1985: fig. 10). Notes on cocoons of the Campoplex difformis group Cocoons of the following species have been examined: Campoplex capitator (Fig. 12A), C. dubitator (Fig. 12B), C. formosanae (Fig. 12C–E), C. unicingulatus (Fig. 12F), C. punctulatus (Fig. 13A–B), C. restrictor (Fig. 13C–D), C. sulcatus Horstmann, 1985 (Fig. 13E), and C. melanostoma (Fig. 13F). Species of Campoplex are solitary koinobiont endoparasitoids, mainly of small moths belonging to families Coleophoridae, Gelechiidae, Pyralidae, Tortricidae, and Yponomeutidae (Aubert 1983; Horstmann 1980, 1985; Shaw & Aeshlimann 1994; Yu et al. 2016). They preferentially oviposit in larvae and complete their development killing the host as prepupa. Sometimes, when unusual larger hosts are attacked, the hosts are killed before they can reach the prepupal stage; also, a few species kill the host when it has pupated (Shaw & Aeshlimann 1994; Shaw et al. 2016; Broad et al. 2018); the parasitoid spins its own cocoon inside or outside the host’s remains (Leong & Oatman 1968; Shaw & Aeshlimann 1994; Athanassov et al. 1998; Shaw et al. 2016); in our samples, at least two species – C. formosanae and C. punctulatus – spin their cocoon both externally to the host’s prepupa remains (that are made by the host's final instar skin) or wait for the host to have pupated and spin the cocoon inside the host’s chrysalis (Figs 12C–D, 13A–B). Cocoons of Campoplex (Figs 12–13) are elongate, sub-cylindrical, with rounded poles; cocoon size is related to adult size, so that male cocoons are generally smaller than those of females; in the examined cocoons, the length is about 3 × (± 0.3) in females and about 2.6 × (± 0.1) in males, the maximum width being measured at the equatorial zone. The colour is quite variable, even within the same species, ranging from pure silky white to very dark brown or blackish, with different shades of colour. The CEB can be present or absent, even when looking at cocoons of the same species; when present, the band can be intense white or dark, or sometimes the cocoon appears bicoloured with two thin external dark bands and a lighter internal band. Thickness and texture are variable too, from very thin and translucent (like in C. capitator) to very thick and opaque, and from smooth to corrugated surface. The loosely woven outer layer can be reduced or thick, giving the cocoon a woolly appearance and hiding the surface details of the dense middle layer. In several species of Ichneumonidae and Braconidae there is seasonal dimorphism in the structure and robustness of the cocoon, with the overwintering one thicker, darker and tougher than the summer one (Shaw & Huddleston 1991; Quicke 2015). The cocoons of Campoplex we examined show an evident dimorphism, even if probably not related to seasonality; most of them are from spring-summer generations, which have not entered diapause. Thus, the cause of observed dimorphism has to be sought in the exploited host and host plant. For example, observing a conspicuous series of cocoons of C. capitator reared in the laboratory on Lobesia botrana collected on Daphne gnidium and on Vitis vinifera L. in Italy, we noticed a constancy in the structure and colour of the cocoons, without evident seasonal variation. However, it cannot be excluded that observed variation in other species is due to the presence of further sibling species that are difficult to separate on a morphological basis. Without a better knowledge of intraspecific variation, it remains extremely difficult to reliably assign specimens developed on different hosts and different places to the same taxon on the base of cocoon features and shapes., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on pages 5-10, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Horstmann K. 1985. Revision der mit difformis (Gmelin, 1790) verwandten westpalaarktischen Arten der Gattung Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna 6 (12): 129 - 163.","Horstmann K. 1980. Neue westpalaarktische Campopleginen-Arten (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Mitteilungen der Munchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft 69: 117 - 132.","Gravenhorst J. L. C. 1829. Ichneumonologia Europaea. Pars III. Vratislaviae.","Aubert J-F. 1960 a. Descriptions preliminaires de quelques especes et sous-especes mediterraneenes de la famille des Ichneumonides. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de Mulhouse 1960 (September - October): 62 - 65.","Aubert J-F. 1980. Notes sur diverses Ichneumonides mal connues ou inedites. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de Mulhouse 1980 (January - March): 1 - 6.","Horstmann K. 1993. Neue Taxa der Campopleginae aus den Gattungen Campoplex Gravenhorst, Diadegma Forster und Nemeritis Holmgren (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Osterreichischer Entomologen 44 (3 - 4): 116 - 127.","Horstmann K. 2012. Revisionen von Schlupfwespen-Arten XVI (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Mitteilungen der Munchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft 102: 105 - 115.","Horstmann K. 2000. Typenrevision der von Gravenhorst beschriebenen oder gedeuteten Campoplex - Arten (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer Biologische Beitrage 32 (2): 1203 - 1214.","Horstmann K. & Yu D. S. 1999. Bemerkungen zur Taxonomie und Nomenklatur westpalaarktischer Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Osterreichischer Entomologen 50: 77 - 84.","Ratzeburg J. T. C. 1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten in forstlicher und entomologischer Beziehung. Dritter und letzter Band. Berlin.","Yu D., Achterberg C. van & Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016 - World Ichneumonoidea 2015. Taxonomy, Biology, Morphology and Distribution. On USB Flash drive. Nepean, Ontario, Canada.","Tanigoshi L. K. & Stary P. 2003. Hymenopterous parasitoids of the cherry bark tortric, Enarmonia formosana (Scopoli) in central-east Europe (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonoidea; Lepidoptera, Tortricidae). Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde 76: 100 - 6102.","Jenner W. H., Kuhlmann U., Cossentine J. E. & Roitberg B. D. 2004. Phenology, distribution, and the natural parasitoid community of the cherry bark tortrix. Biological Control 31: 72 - 82.","Jenner W. H., Kuhlmann U., Cossentine J. E. & Roitberg B. D. 2005. Reproductive biology and small-scale rearing of cherry bark tortrix and its candidate biological control agent. Journal of Applied Entomology 129 (8): 437 - 442.","Jenner W. H., Jenner E. J., Kuhlmann U., Bennett A. M. & Cossentine J. E. 2013. Enarmonia formosana Scopoli, cherry bark tortrix (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). In: Mason P. G. & Gillespie D. R. (eds) Biological Control Programmes in Canada, 2001 - 2012: 156 - 163. CABI, Delemont, Switzerland.","Jenner W. H. & Kuhlmann U. 2006. Significance of host size for a solitary endoparasitoid: a trade-off between fitness parameters. Basic and Applied Ecology 7 (5): 461 - 471.","Hunt E. & Kuhlmann U. 2007. Biological control of cherry bark tortrix, Enarmonia formosana. Annual Report 2006 / 2007 (unpubl.). CABI Europe, Delemont, Switzerland.","Hunt E., Haye T. & Kuhlmann U. 2008. Biological Control of Cherry Bark Tortrix, Enarmonia formosana. Annual Report 2006 / 2007 (unpubl.). CABI Europe, Delemont, Switzerland.","Jenner W. H. & Roitberg B. D. 2009. Foraging behaviour and patch exploitation by Campoplex dubitator (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a parasitoid of bark-mining larvae. Journal of Insect Behaviour 22: 257 - 272.","Aubert J-F. 1983. Ichneumonides parasites de Coleophorides et quelques autres microlepidopteres au Musee de Verone. Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 9: 9 - 16.","Shaw M. R. & Aeshlimann J. P. 1994. Host ranges of parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae and Ichneumonidae) reared from Epermenia chaerophylella (Goeze) (Lepidoptera: Epermeniidae) in Britain, with description of a new species of Triclistus (Ichneumonidae). Journal of Natural History 28 (4): 619 - 629.","Shaw M. R., Horstmann K. & Whiffin A. L. 2016. Two hundred and twenty-five species of reared western Palaearctic Campopleginae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in the National Museum of Scotland, with descriptions of new species of Campoplex and Diadegma, and records of fifty-five species new to Britain. Entomologist's Gazette 67: 177 - 222.","Broad G. R., Shaw M. R. & Fitton M. G. 2018. Ichneumonid Wasps (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae): Their Classification and Biology. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, vol. 7, part 12. Royal Entomological Society, London.","Leong J. K. L. & Oatman E. R. 1968. The biology of Campoplex haywardi (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a primary parasite of the potato tuberworm. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 61: 26 - 36.","Athanassov A. Z., Jeanneret P., Charmillot P. J. & Renard D. 1998. Parasitoids of codling moth and other leafrollers (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) in apple orchards and forests in south-west Switzerland. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 71 (1 - 2): 153 - 162.","Shaw M. R. & Huddleston T. 1991. Classification and biology of braconid wasps (Hyemenoptera: Braconidae). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, Vol. 7, Part 11. Royal Entomological Society of London, London, England.","Quicke D. L. J. 2015. The Braconid and Ichneumonid Parasitoid Wasps: Biology, Systematics, Evolution and Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, UK."]}

4. Campoplex mutabilis corsicator Aubert, 1960 (MZL). This was reported by Horstmann (1985) as a synonym of C. tibialis. Following Horstmann (1985), specimens of corsicator in Aubert’s collection belong to neither tibialis nor related species, as they have an ovipositor ratio of about 1.6 (whilst tibialis in Horstmann’s collection has an index of about 1.3). Campoplex corsicator also has very short temples (temple in lateral view about 0.5–0.6 as long as the transverse diameter of the eye in C. tibialis) and the area basalis triangular, i.e., with lateral carinae bounding the area basalis converging posteriorly to a single point, then extended to a short longitudinal carina towards the base of the area superomedia (area basalis trapezoidal, i.e., with lateral carinae converging posteriorly, but not touching at the base of the area superomedia in C. tibialis) (see redescription below and Fig. 3)., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on page 5, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Aubert J-F. 1960 a. Descriptions preliminaires de quelques especes et sous-especes mediterraneenes de la famille des Ichneumonides. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de Mulhouse 1960 (September - October): 62 - 65.","Horstmann K. 1985. Revision der mit difformis (Gmelin, 1790) verwandten westpalaarktischen Arten der Gattung Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna 6 (12): 129 - 163."]}

Campoplex difformis (Gmelin, 1790) Figs 4D, 5D, 7B, 9B, 10B, 14B, 16 Ichneumon difformis Gmelin, 1790: 2720. Material examined GERMANY • 4 ♀♀; ZSM. Description Female MEASUREMENTS. Body length 6.8–7.7 mm; fore wing length 4.8–5.5 mm. HEAD. Face about 0.75–0.85 × as high as wide. Malar space 0.5–0.6 × width of mandibular base. Gena 0.8 × as long as eye (maximum width, seen laterally); temple about 0.5 × as long as eye (seen dorsally), weakly narrowed behind eye, imaginary lines connecting outer side of eye and temple intersect at the level of the scutellum. OOD 0.55 × distance between lateral ocelli. Mandibular teeth subequal. Clypeus 0.5 × as high as wide, not produced in profile medially, matt and coriaceous, its apical margin sharp and gently rounded. Face and frons granulate and matt. Vertex and temples coriaceous and subpolished. Flagellum in examined specimens with 33 segments, flagellomeres in apical quarter about 0.7–0.8 × as long as wide. MESOSOMA. Pronotum medio-ventrally with longitudinal striae, dorsally coriaceous. Epomia indistinct. Mesoscutum and scutellum granulate and matt, scutellum without lateral carinae. Mesopleuron coriaceous and matt, with shallow and scattered punctures, especially on antero-ventral half; speculum smooth, anteriorly with fine longitudinal striae. Epicnemial carina only slightly sinuate subventrally, ventrally slightly raised, in middle without notch and not produced into lobes. Metapleuron coriaceous and matt. Fore wing with areolet small and petiolate, 2m-cu beyond its middle; 1cu-a opposite M&RS. Hind wing with proximal abscissa of CU 5.5 × as long as cu-a, distal abscissa of CU unpigmented. Hind femur 4.5 × as long as its maximum width, longer inner tibial spur about 0.5–0.6 × as long as hind basitarsus. Propodeum with area basalis rectangular, about 0.4 × as wide as area superomedia; area superomedia large, about 1.8 × as wide as long, coriaceous and matt, relatively strongly depressed from anterior margin and open posteriorly. Area petiolaris clearly depressed and with irregular transverse striae. Rim of propodeal spiracle and carina connecting propodeal spiracle to pleural carina normal. METASOMA. Postpetiole coriaceous. Metasomal tergite II 1.4 × as long as apically wide. Ovipositor ratio 1.6–1.7. COLOUR. Black. Palps and tegulae yellowish-white. Mandibles (except black base and reddish teeth) and pedicel apically yellow. Scape and flagellum yellowish-brown, flagellum lighter distally. Pterostigma yellowish-brown. All coxae black, fore coxa yellow marked distally, all tibial spurs yellowish-white; fore and mid trochanters and trochantelli yellowish-red, fore and mid femora, tibiae and tarsi yellowishred. Hind trochanter and trochantellus brownish, hind femur red, hind tibia and tarsus yellowish-red, tibia with very small light spot at base, very slightly brownish subbasally and apically. Metasoma and ovipositor sheath black., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on pages 17-21, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Gmelin J. F. 1790. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae (Ed. XIII). Tom I, Pars V. Leipzig.","Horstmann K. 2012. Revisionen von Schlupfwespen-Arten XVI (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Mitteilungen der Munchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft 102: 105 - 115.","Aubert J-F. 1960 a. Descriptions preliminaires de quelques especes et sous-especes mediterraneenes de la famille des Ichneumonides. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de Mulhouse 1960 (September - October): 62 - 65.","Horstmann K. 1985. Revision der mit difformis (Gmelin, 1790) verwandten westpalaarktischen Arten der Gattung Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna 6 (12): 129 - 163.","Schmiedeknecht O. 1909. Opuscula Ichneumonologica. IV Band. Fasc. XXI - XXIII. Ophioninae: 1601 - 1840. Blankenburg, Thuringen."]}

Campoplex unicingulatus (Schmiedeknecht, 1909) Figs 5C, 6B, 7E, 9E, 10E, 12F, 14E Omorgus unicingulatus Schmiedeknecht, 1909: 1723. Material examined GERMANY • 1 ♀; ZSM. HUNGARY • 1 ♀; ZSM. UNITED KINGDOM • 5 ♀♀; NMS. Description Female MEASUREMENTS. Body length 6.3–7.6 mm; fore wing length 4.5–5.2 mm. HEAD. Face about 0.65–0.75 × as high as wide. Malar space 0.6–0.7 × width of mandibular base. Gena 0.7 × as long as eye (maximum width, seen laterally); temple about 0.7 × as long as eye (seen dorsally), weakly narrowed behind eye, imaginary lines connecting outer side of eye and temple intersect at the level of the scutellum. OOD 0.65 × distance between lateral ocelli. Mandibular teeth subequal. Clypeus 0.5 × as high as wide, not produced in profile medially, matt and coriaceous, its apical margin sharp and gently rounded. Face and frons granulate and matt. Vertex and temples coriaceous and subpolished. Flagellum in examined specimens with 32 segments, flagellomeres in apical quarter about 0.75–0.8 × as long as wide. MESOSOMA. Pronotum medio-ventrally with longitudinal striae, dorsally coriaceous. Epomia indistinct. Mesoscutum and scutellum granulate and matt, scutellum without lateral carinae. Mesopleuron coriaceous and matt, with shallow and scattered punctures, especially on antero-ventral half; speculum smooth, anteriorly with fine longitudinal striae. Epicnemial carina only slightly sinuate subventrally, from subventrally to ventrally clearly and evenly raised, in middle with a shallow notch but not produced into lobes. Metapleuron coriaceous and matt. Fore wing with areolet small and petiolate, 2m-cu beyond its middle; 1cu-a opposite M&RS. Hind wing with proximal abscissa of CU 4.5–5 × as long as cu-a, distal abscissa of CU unpigmented. Hind femur 4.5 × as long as its maximum width, the longer inner tibial spur about 0.5–0.6 × as long as hind basitarsus. Propodeum with area basalis rectangular, about 0.4 × as wide as area superomedia; area superomedia large, about 1.7 × as wide as long, granulate and matt, with few small striae on lateral margins, slightly depressed and open posteriorly. Area petiolaris slightly depressed and with irregular transverse striae. Rim of propodeal spiracle and carina connecting propodeal spiracle to pleural carina normal. METASOMA. Postpetiole coriaceous. Metasomal tergite II 1.4 × as long as apically wide. Ovipositor ratio 1.4–1.5. COLOUR. Black. Palps and tegulae yellowish-white. Mandibles (except black base and reddish teeth) and pedicel apically yellow. Scape and flagellum yellowish-brown, flagellum lighter distally. Pterostigma yellowish-brown. All coxae black, fore coxa yellow marked distally, all tibial spurs yellowish-white; fore and mid trochanters and trochantelli yellowish-red, fore and mid femora, tibiae and tarsi yellowishred. Hind trochanter and trochantellus brownish, hind femur red, hind tibia and tarsus yellowish-red, tibia with very small light spot at the base, very slightly brownish subbasally and apically. Metasoma and ovipositor sheath black., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on pages 29-30, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Schmiedeknecht O. 1909. Opuscula Ichneumonologica. IV Band. Fasc. XXI - XXIII. Ophioninae: 1601 - 1840. Blankenburg, Thuringen."]}

Genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829: 453. Type-species: Ichneumon difformis Gmelin, 1790. Designated by Westwood 1840., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on page 10, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Gravenhorst J. L. C. 1829. Ichneumonologia Europaea. Pars III. Vratislaviae.","Gmelin J. F. 1790. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae (Ed. XIII). Tom I, Pars V. Leipzig.","Westwood J. O. 1840. Introduction to the modern Classification of Insects. Vol. II. Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, London, UK."]}

Campoplex capitator Aubert, 1960 Figs 7A, 9A, 10A, 12A, 14A, 15 Campoplex capitator Aubert, 1960: 64. Material examined Lectotype designated here FRANCE • 1 ♀; “TYPE // CAMPOPLEX ♀; (= OMORGUS); CAPITATOR Aub. // J.F.AUBERT; 24.8.1958; COSPRONS (P.O.) // Comparées; toutes les; esp. de Thomson // Visage + court; +transverse; que chez difformis; et troch. I. clairs; Tergite II + long.; II-III et tarière; + longs que chez fusciplica; (...) + long que chez; molesta; + const; que chez Stenogaster; (non décrit?).; ssp. de BILOBA ?; Mais ant. + grêles; Area sup. media; non creusée; Exte des tibias; obscuries et; mandib. jaunes // Fusciplica type; tarière tergites; II-III + courts; tibias extrémit; noire. // f. ABBREVIATUS Brisch.; MAJOR Szepl. [crossed out]; OVATUS Brisch. // Algericus; ou fusciplica ? [all crossed out] // Syntype 1/3 (3); Campoplex; capitator; Aubert, 1960g; labelled by S. Klopfstein 2009”. Additional material examined ITALY •> 100 ♀♀; DISAAA. Description Female MEASUREMENTS. Body length 5.0– 6.5 mm; fore wing length 3.5–4.5 mm. HEAD. Face about 0.60–0.70 × as high as wide. Malar space 0.5–0.6 × width of mandibular base. Gena 0.8 × as long as eye (maximum width, seen laterally); temple about 0.6 × as long as eye (seen dorsally), weakly narrowed behind eye, imaginary lines connecting outer side of eye and temple intersect at the level of scutellum. OOD 0.55 × distance between lateral ocelli. Mandibular teeth subequal. Clypeus 0.5 × as high as wide, not produced in profile medially, matt and coriaceous, its apical margin sharp and gently rounded. Face and frons granulate and matt. Vertex and temples coriaceous and subpolished. Flagellum in examined specimens with 27–30 (usually 28–29) segments, flagellomeres in apical quarter about 0.9–1.0 × as long as wide. MESOSOMA. Pronotum medio-ventrally with longitudinal striae, dorsally coriaceous. Epomia indistinct. Mesoscutum and scutellum granulate and matt, scutellum without lateral carinae. Mesopleuron coriaceous and matt, with shallow and scattered punctures, especially on antero-ventral half; speculum smooth, anteriorly with fine longitudinal striae. Epicnemial carina only slightly sinuate subventrally, ventrally slightly raised, in middle without notch and not produced into lobes. Metapleuron coriaceous and matt. Fore wing with areolet small and petiolate, 2m-cu beyond its middle; 1cu-a opposite M&RS. Hind wing with proximal abscissa of CU 3 × as long as cu-a, distal abscissa of CU unpigmented. Hind femur 4.5 × as long as its maximum width, the longer inner tibial spur about 0.5–0.6 × as long as hind basitarsus. Propodeum with area basalis rectangular, about 0.4 × as wide as area superomedia; area superomedia large, about 1.4 × as wide as long, coriaceous and matt, not depressed, posteriorly open (just a weak hint of carina separating it from area petiolaris). Area petiolaris very slightly depressed and with irregular transverse striae. Rim of propodeal spiracle and carina connecting propodeal spiracle to pleural carina thickened. METASOMA. Postpetiole coriaceous. Metasomal tergite II 1.3 × as long as apically wide. Ovipositor ratio 1.55–1.65. COLOUR. Black. Palps and tegulae yellowish-white. Mandibles (except black base and reddish teeth) and pedicel apically yellow. Scape and flagellum yellowish-brown, flagellum lighter distally. Pterostigma yellowish-brown. All coxae black, fore coxa yellow marked distally, all tibial spurs yellowish-white; fore and mid trochanters and trochantelli yellowish-red, fore and mid femora, tibiae and tarsi yellowishred. Hind trochanter and trochantellus brownish, hind femur red, hind tibia and tarsus yellowish-red, tibia with very small light spot at base, very slightly brownish sub-basally and apically. Metasoma and ovipositor sheath black. Notes The shape of the area superomedia is rather variable. Specimens collected and/or reared from Lobesia botrana in Italy showed a certain degree of variation, in particular in the length of the lateral margins of the area superomedia (i.e., carina running from costula to base of area petiolaris)., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on pages 15-17, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Aubert J-F. 1960 a. Descriptions preliminaires de quelques especes et sous-especes mediterraneenes de la famille des Ichneumonides. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de Mulhouse 1960 (September - October): 62 - 65.","Gmelin J. F. 1790. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae (Ed. XIII). Tom I, Pars V. Leipzig.","Horstmann K. 1985. Revision der mit difformis (Gmelin, 1790) verwandten westpalaarktischen Arten der Gattung Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna 6 (12): 129 - 163.","Horstmann K. 2012. Revisionen von Schlupfwespen-Arten XVI (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Mitteilungen der Munchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft 102: 105 - 115.","Schmiedeknecht O. 1909. Opuscula Ichneumonologica. IV Band. Fasc. XXI - XXIII. Ophioninae: 1601 - 1840. Blankenburg, Thuringen."]}

2. Campoplex mutabilis var. gracilis (Ulbricht, 1910) (MZL). Campoplex gracilis is a synonym of C. dubitator Horstmann, 1985 (Horstmann 1985). Specimens of C. gracilis in Aubert’s collection are actually C. difformis sensu Horstmann; two specimens in Aubert’s collection, one female and one male, have been correctly identified and labelled as difformis by Horstmann himself., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on page 5, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Horstmann K. 1985. Revision der mit difformis (Gmelin, 1790) verwandten westpalaarktischen Arten der Gattung Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna 6 (12): 129 - 163."]}

Campoplex corsicator Aubert, 1960 stat. rev. Figs 2E, 3, 7F, 9F, 10F, 14F Campoplex mutabilis corsicator Aubert, 1960: 64. Material examined Lectotype designated here FRANCE • 1 ♀, last 6 flagellomeres of right antenna missing; “TYPE // Campoplex ♀; (= Omorgus); mutabilis Holm; corsicator Aub. // Comparée au; lectotype (Hinz) // J. F. Aubert; 13.8.1959; Ajaccio (Corse) // Campoplex (Nemeritis); tibialis Szepl.; (= corsicator Aub.) // Syntype 1/? (6); Campoplex; mutabilis corsicator; Aubert, 1960g; labelled by S. Klopfstein 2009”. Description based on the lectotype Female MEASUREMENTS. Body length 7.1 mm; fore wing length 4.4 mm. HEAD. Face about 0.80–0.90 × as high as wide. Malar space 0.5–0.6 × width of mandibular base. Gena about 0.4 × as long as eye (maximum width, seen laterally); temple 0.3 × as long as eye (see dorsally), narrowed behind eye, imaginary lines connecting outer side of eye and temple intersect not before the level of the scutellar groove or just behind it. OOD 0.65 × distance between lateral ocelli. Mandibular teeth subequal. Clypeus 0.4–0.5 × as high as wide, not produced in profile medially, matt and coriaceous, its apical margin sharp and gently rounded. Face and frons granulate and matt. Vertex and temples coriaceous and subpolished. Flagellum in the examined specimen with 33 segments, flagellomeres in apical quarter about 0.8–0.9 × as long as wide. MESOSOMA. Pronotum medio-ventrally with longitudinal striae, dorsally coriaceous. Epomia indistinct. Mesoscutum and scutellum granulate and matt, scutellum without lateral carinae. Mesopleuron coriaceous and matt, with shallow and scattered punctures, especially on antero-ventral half; speculum smooth, anteriorly with fine longitudinal striae. Epicnemial carina only slightly sinuate subventrally, ventrally slightly raised, in middle without notch and not produced into lobes. Metapleuron coriaceous and matt. Fore wing with areolet small and petiolate, 2m-cu beyond its middle; 1cu-a opposite M&RS. Hind wing with proximal abscissa of CU 4.5 × as long as cu-a, distal abscissa of CU unpigmented. Hind femur 4.5 × as long as its maximum width, the longer inner tibial spur about 0.5–0.6 × as long as hind basitarsus. Propodeum with area basalis triangular and connected by a small longitudinal carina to anterior margin of area superomedia, at its anterior end about 0.4 × as wide as area superomedia (width at level of costulae); area superomedia large, about 1.4 × as wide as long, coriaceous and matt, not depressed and open posteriorly, with few transverse striae at its lateral margins. Area petiolaris very slightly depressed and with irregular transverse striae. Rim of propodeal spiracle and carina connecting propodeal spiracle to pleural carina normal. METASOMA. Postpetiole coriaceous. Metasomal tergite II 1.6 × as long as posteriorly wide. Ovipositor ratio about 1.6. COLOUR. Black. Palps and tegulae yellowish-white. Mandibles (except black base and reddish teeth) and pedicel apically yellow. Scape and flagellum yellowish-brown, flagellum lighter distally. Pterostigma yellowish-brown. All coxae black, fore coxa yellow marked distally, all tibial spurs yellowish-white; fore and mid trochanters and trochantelli yellow, fore and mid femora, tibiae and tarsi yellowish-red. Hind trochanter and trochantellus brownish, hind femur red, hind tibia and tarsus yellowish-red, tibia with very small light spot at base, slightly brownish subbasally. Metasoma and ovipositor sheath black. Notes The examined specimen, which we designate as the lectotype, does not fit the description of Campoplex tibialis, as the ovipositor ratio is clearly greater than that of C. tibialis. Also, the specimen is characterized by the temple, in lateral view, at most 0.4–0.5 × as long as the transverse diameter of the eye and the propodeum with the area basalis triangular (as in Campoplex angustioranae (Bauer, 1937); Horstmann 1985). These reasons led us to remove C. corsicator from synonymy with C. tibialis (Horstmann, 1985)., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Loni, Augusto & Lucchi, Andrea, 2021, Taxonomic revision of the Campoplex difformis group (Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), with particular reference to species of economic importance, pp. 1-35 in European Journal of Taxonomy 740 on pages 10-15, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2021.740.1277, http://zenodo.org/record/4637836, {"references":["Aubert J-F. 1960 a. Descriptions preliminaires de quelques especes et sous-especes mediterraneenes de la famille des Ichneumonides. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de Mulhouse 1960 (September - October): 62 - 65.","Gmelin J. F. 1790. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae (Ed. XIII). Tom I, Pars V. Leipzig.","Horstmann K. 1985. Revision der mit difformis (Gmelin, 1790) verwandten westpalaarktischen Arten der Gattung Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna 6 (12): 129 - 163.","Schmiedeknecht O. 1909. Opuscula Ichneumonologica. IV Band. Fasc. XXI - XXIII. Ophioninae: 1601 - 1840. Blankenburg, Thuringen."]}

Campoplex albimanus Walker, 1874 (Figure 33) Taxonomic history. Morley (1913b) transferred this species to Nematopodius Gravenhorst, 1829, but Uchida (1940b) transferred it to Mesostenus Gravenhorst, 1829 and synonymised it with M. funebris Gravenhorst, 1829. Current taxonomy. Junior synonym of Mesostenus funebris Gravenhorst, 1829 (Ichneumonidae: Cryptinae: Cryptini). Type number. Type 3b.638. Specimen # NHMUK010881025 Type status. Holotype. Sex. Male. Type locality. Japan. Label data. First label, ‘Type’ (round label, with red margin; printed); second label, ‘B. M. TYPE /HYM./3.b.638’ (square label; first and second lines printed and third line handwriting); third label, ‘ Japan./Coll.F. Walker./ 1913–71.’ (square label; printed); fourth label, ‘ Campoplex /albimanus/Walk’ (square label; handwriting); fifth label, ‘262’ (square label; handwriting); sixth label, ‘ Nematopodius sp./Morley det. xii. 1913 ’ (square label; ‘Morley det.’ printed and the remaining characters handwriting). Condition. Good; the following are missing: the right antenna after the 21st, left antenna after 10th flagellomere, right mid tibia and tarsus, second to fifth tarsomeres of left mid leg, fourth and fifth tarsomeres of right hind leg, fifth tarsomere of left hind leg, right fore wing., Published as part of Shimizu, So & Broad, Gavin R., 2020, Photographic catalogue of the oldest primary types of Japanese Ichneumonoidea (Hymenoptera), those described by Frederick Smith and Francis Walker in 1874, pp. 1115-1198 in Journal of Natural History 54 (17) on pages 1166-1168, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2020.1776905, http://zenodo.org/record/4116141, {"references":["Walker F. 1874. Descriptions of some Japanese Hymenoptera. Cistula Entomol. 1: 301 - 310.","Morley C. 1913 b. On Walker's Japanese Ichneumonidae. Entomologist. 46: 131 - 135.","Gravenhorst JLC. 1829. Ichneumonologia Europaea. Pars II. Vratislaviae: sumtibus auctoris; 989 pp.","Uchida T. 1940 b. Die walkerschen Typen der japanischen Ichneumoniden. Insecta Matsumurana. 14: 108 - 114."]}

Campoplex striatus HORSTMANN, 1985 M a t e r i a l: H 1: 1♀ 15-25.V. D i s t r i b u t i o n: Known from Germany and Italy, new for Georgia and the Caucasus region., Published as part of Riedel, Matthias, Diller, Erich & Japoshvili, George, 2018, The Ichneumonid fauna (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) of Lagodekhi Reserve, Sakartvelo (Georgia), with descriptions of four new species, pp. 1447-1507 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 50 (2) on page 1451, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5275090

In this second review of the parasitoids recorded onLobesiabotrana(EGVM) in Italy, an updated list and summary of the information available on 14 taxa of Ichneumonidae belonging to the subfamilies Anomaloninae and Campopleginae are provided. For each taxon, geographic distributions, host ranges, ecological role in viticulture and/or in other crops, and taxonomy are provided and discussed. For the most interesting species, tables summarizing the parasitization rates recorded in the field on EGVM or other lepidopteran pests are given. Identification mistakes and wrong synonymies that have generated great confusion and often made geographic distributions and host ranges unreliable are highlighted. A list of four Anomaloninae and 27 Campopleginae recorded on EGVM in Europe is also provided. Among the species examined,CampoplexcapitatorAubert is the only potential candidate for biological control of EGVM.

Campoplex sp. Habitat: Dry forest. Phenology: April���July. Studied material: MEXICO. Yucat��n State, R��a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve, Cuyo Station, Tekal: 03��� 17. VI. 2008, 1 ��; 01��� 15. IV. 2009, 1 �� (CER��� UADY); 29.IV��� 13. V. 2009, 1 ��; 08��� 22. VII. 2009, 1 �� (CEUA)., Published as part of Moreno, Alejandra Gonz��lez - & Bordera, Santiago, 2012, The Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea) of R��a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve, Yucat��n, Mexico, pp. 1-51 in Zootaxa 3230 on page 4, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.214087

Campoplex techer Rousse et Villemant, sp. nov. (Figs 9 a���b) Diagnosis. Black species with yellowish legs, characterized by its flagellum basally yellowish, its long malar space and its straight ovipositor. Description. FEMALE (4 specimens). Fore wing length 2.2���2.6 mm. Head. Temples rounded, head moderately constricted behind eyes; OOi = 0.8, IOi = 1; occipital carina complete distant from posterior ocelli by 2.5 x OOi; vertex and frons finely granulate; inner margin of eye hardly concave in front of torulus; face and clypeus granulate and sparsely punctate; face transverse, 1.4 x wider than high, slightly protruding medially; anterior tentorial pit deep; clypeus moderately convex, its apical margin rounded, not impressed, Ci = 1.7; mandible moderately slender, with a ventral flange on proximal 0.4, upper tooth about 1.5 times longer than lower; MLMi = 1.3; genal carina joining hypostomal carina above base of mandible. Antenna with 26���28 flagellomeres. Mesosoma. Pronotum longitudinally strigose, without epomia; meso- and metapleuron strongly granulate and densely punctate anteriorly, the punctures merging into striations below subalar prominence, speculum smooth; mesoscutum densely granulate with sparse punctuation and short raised hair, notaulus hardly distinct anteriorly; scuto-scutellar groove deep; scutellum convex; propodeum shining, anteriorly granulate and sligthly coriaceous laterally, rather strongly carinate, areae superomedia and petiolaris confluent, the resulting area slightly concave and smoother than the rest of the propodeum, carination otherwise complete. Tarsal claws basally pectinate. Fore wing with areolet minute and strongly petiolate, 3 Rs-m partly spectral, 2 Rs-m 1.5 x longer than distance between 2 Rs-m and 2 m-Cu; cu-a slightly distad to Rs&M; hind wing with 1 /Cu&cu-a almost straight, Cu 1 absent. Metasoma. Tergite I slender, its basal section oval depressed with basal separation of tergite and sternite a little below mid-height; second tergite about 2 x as long as apically wide and 0.8 x the length of petiole; tergites alutaceous with rare punctures and hairs; ovipositor straight, apically notched, OTi = 0.7. Color. Overall black with last tergites more brownish and legs yellowish orange; scape, pedicel and first flagellomere yellow orange, rest of the flagellum regularly darkening toward apex. MALE. Unknown. Comments. By its general morphology, this species can be related to the worldwide genus Campoplex and the Australian genus Neolophron Gauld, 1984. It differs from these two genera by its malar space distinctly longer than basal width of mandible, from Campoplex by its straight ovipositor and from Neolophron by its much slender tergite I whose sternite distinctly overpass middle of tergite. Campoplex is a very specious genus that includes a considerable range of morphological diversity. Pending a revision of Campoplex and a clear definition of its limits, we do not describe a new genus for this species. Distribution records. Reunion. Type material. HOLOTYPE �� (MNHN EY 6418) Verbatim label data: La R��union, St Pierre / Bassin Martin, Station exp��rimentale de l���Armeflhor, alt. 290m, 25 / 11 ���02/ 12 2010, leg. Cirad, complete. PARATYPES (MNHN EY 6419���6421): 1 �� same date, same locality, leg. Cirad. 2 �� La R��union, St Pierre / Monvert les Hauts, alt. 600m, III. 2011, leg. Cirad., Published as part of Rousse, Pascal & Villemant, Claire, 2012, Ichneumons in Reunion Island: a catalogue of the local Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera) species, including 15 new taxa and a key to species, pp. 1-57 in Zootaxa 3278 on pages 11-12, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.214150, {"references":["Gauld, I. D. (1984) An introduction to the Ichneumonidae of Australia. British Museum of Natural History, London, UK, 413 pp."]}

Campoplex sp. Habitat: Dry forest. Phenology: April–July. Studied material: MEXICO. Yucatán State, Ría Lagartos Biosphere Reserve, Cuyo Station, Tekal: 03– 17. VI. 2008, 1 Ƥ; 01– 15. IV. 2009, 1 Ƥ (CER– UADY); 29.IV– 13. V. 2009, 1 Ƥ; 08– 22. VII. 2009, 1 Ƥ (CEUA).

Campoplex nitidulator HOLMGREN var. obscurus KISS 1926 Campoplex nitidulator HOLMGREN var. obscurus KISS 1926b: 106 – Holotypus (3 nach der Beschreibung): "Szkézd Silbernagel" (= Szászkézd = Saschiz/ Rumänien), Budapest. Dem Holotypus fehlen grössere Teile der Beine, ein Vorderflügel und der Gaster. G ü l t i g e r N a m e Dusona nidulator (FABRICIUS 1804) (HINZ 1963: 336)., Published as part of Horstmann, K., 2009, Typenrevisionen der von Kiss beschriebenen Taxa der Ichneumonidae III. Verschiedene Unterfamilien (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae), pp. 673-689 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 41 (1) on page 675, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5276253, {"references":["KISS A. (1926 b): Zweiter Beitrag zur Kenntnis der ungarischen und siebenburgischen Ichneumoniden- (Schlupfwespen-) Fauna. - Verh. Mitt. Siebenburg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt 75 / 76: 74 - 120.","HINZ R. (1963): Uber einige Typen der Gattung Dusona CAMERON (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). - Beitr. Ent. 13: 335 - 344."]}

Campoplex terebrator FÖRSTER var. niger KISS 1924 Campoplex terebrator FÖRSTER var. niger KISS 1924: 100 – Holotypus (♀): "Retyezát Diószeghy" (= Reţezat/ Rumänien), Budapest. G ü l t i g e r N a m e Dusona petiolator (FABRICIUS 1804) (HINZ 1963: 336)., Published as part of Horstmann, K., 2009, Typenrevisionen der von Kiss beschriebenen Taxa der Ichneumonidae III. Verschiedene Unterfamilien (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae), pp. 673-689 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 41 (1) on page 675, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5276253, {"references":["KISS A. (1924): Beitrage zur Kenntnis der ungarischen und siebenburgischen Ichneumoniden- (Schlupfwespen-) Fauna. - Verh. Mitt. Siebenburg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt 72 / 74: 32 - 146.","HINZ R. (1963): Uber einige Typen der Gattung Dusona CAMERON (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). - Beitr. Ent. 13: 335 - 344."]}

Campoplex transitorius KISS 1924 Campoplex transitorius KISS 1924: 100 f. – Holotypus (3!): "Miriszló 1902 V/14. " (= Mirăslău/ Rumänien), Budapest. Dem Holotypus fehlen der Kopf, einige Tarsen, ein Vorderflügel und der Gaster. Kiss hat den Typus als ♀ beschrieben, aber er stimmt mit 33 der Art überein. G ü l t i g e r N a m e Dusona subimpressa (FÖRSTER 1868) (HINZ 1963: 336 f.)., Published as part of Horstmann, K., 2009, Typenrevisionen der von Kiss beschriebenen Taxa der Ichneumonidae III. Verschiedene Unterfamilien (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae), pp. 673-689 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 41 (1) on page 675, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5276253, {"references":["KISS A. (1924): Beitrage zur Kenntnis der ungarischen und siebenburgischen Ichneumoniden- (Schlupfwespen-) Fauna. - Verh. Mitt. Siebenburg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt 72 / 74: 32 - 146.","HINZ R. (1963): Uber einige Typen der Gattung Dusona CAMERON (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). - Beitr. Ent. 13: 335 - 344."]}

Campoplex borealis (ZETTERSTEDT 1838) Porizon borealis ZETTERSTEDT 1838. Insect. Lappon. 1: 395. Angitia novakii: STROBL 1904: 87, Croatia. Omorga borealis: STROBL 1904: 79, Croatia, May. Campoplex borealis: YU & HORSTMANN 1997: 118. D i s t r i b u t i o n: Europe, introduced into USA., Published as part of Kolarov, J., 2008, A Catalogue of the [former] Yugoslavian Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera, Insecta), pp. 1585-1739 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 40 (2) on page 1600, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5431642, {"references":["ZETTERSTEDT J. W. (1838): Insecta Lapponica. Sectio secunda. Hymenoptera. - Lipsiae: 358 - 408 pp.","STROBL G. (1904): Ichneumoniden Steiermarks (und der Nachbarlander). V. Fam. Ophionidae. - Mitt. Naturwiss. Ver. Steiermark, Graz 40 (1903): 43 - 160."]}

Campoplex ramidulus (BRISCHKE 1880) Limneria ramidula BRISCHKE 1880. Schrift. Naturf. Ges. Dancig, N.F. 4: 155. Omorga ramidula: STROBL 1904: 80, May-July. D i s t r i b u t i o n: Europe and Turkey., Published as part of Kolarov, J., 2008, A Catalogue of the [former] Yugoslavian Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera, Insecta), pp. 1585-1739 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 40 (2) on page 1601, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5431642, {"references":["BRISCHKE C. G. A. (1880): Die Ichneumoniden der Provinzen West- und Ost-Preussen. - Schrift. Naturforsch. Ges. Danzig 4 (4): 108 - 210.","STROBL G. (1904): Ichneumoniden Steiermarks (und der Nachbarlander). V. Fam. Ophionidae. - Mitt. Naturwiss. Ver. Steiermark, Graz 40 (1903): 43 - 160."]}

Campoplex difformis (GMELIN 1790) Ichneumon difformis GMELIN 1790. Linné. Syst. Nat. 13: 2729. Limneria mutabilis: SCHLETTERER 1894: 20, Croatia, May. Omorga mutabilis: SCHLETTERER 1895: 40, Croatia, June. Omorga lineolata: STROBL 1904: 78, Croatia. Limneria difformis: STROBL 1904: 90, Croatia. D i s t r i b u t i o n:Holarcticregion., Published as part of Kolarov, J., 2008, A Catalogue of the [former] Yugoslavian Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera, Insecta), pp. 1585-1739 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 40 (2) on page 1601, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5431642, {"references":["GMELIN J. F. (1790): CAROLI a LINNE Systema Naturae (Ed. XIII). Tom I. - G. E. Beer. Lipsiae. 2225 - 3020. (Ichneumon: 2674 - 2722).","SCHLETTERER A. (1894): Zur Hymenopteren-Fauna Istriens. - Programm des K. K. Staats- Gymnasiums in Pola 4: 3 - 36.","SCHLETTERER A. (1895): Zur Bienen-Fauna des sudlichen Istrien. - Programm des K. K. Staats-Gymnasiums in Pola 5: 3 - 42.","STROBL G. (1904): Ichneumoniden Steiermarks (und der Nachbarlander). V. Fam. Ophionidae. - Mitt. Naturwiss. Ver. Steiermark, Graz 40 (1903): 43 - 160."]}

Campoplex coracinus (THOMSON 1887) Omorga coracina THOMSON 1887. Opusc. Ent. 11: 1130. Campoplex submarginatus: VASIC 1967: 290, Serbia, Macedonia and Bosna & Hercegovina, ex Rhyacionia buoliana SCHIFF.; Ivanov 1977: 12, Macedonia, ex Rhyacionia buoliana SCHIFF. D i s t r i b u t i o n:Europe., Published as part of Kolarov, J., 2008, A Catalogue of the [former] Yugoslavian Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera, Insecta), pp. 1585-1739 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 40 (2) on page 1601, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5431642, {"references":["VASIC K. (1967): The parasites of the European pine shoot moth, Rhyacionia buoliana SCHIFF., in Serbia and Macedonia. - Zaschtita Bilja 96 - 97: 285 - 299.","IVANOV B. (1977): Paraziti na Rhyacionia buolianae SCHIFF. vo Makedonija I nihnata akcija vo periodot od 1969 - 71. - Shumarski Inst. Scopije 11: 99 - 119."]}