Search

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."]}

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."]}

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 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."]}

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

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."]}

Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi, Diller, Erich (2020): Description of the male of Misetus strumiai Di Giovanni, Scaramozzino & Diller 2018 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini) from Italy. Zootaxa 4810 (1): 198-200, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4810.1.13

Misetus strumiai Di Giovanni, Scaramozzino & Diller, 2018 (Fig. 1 a���e) Material examined. ITALY: 3♂♂, Toscana, Livorno, Isola di Montecristo, 06.vi���26.vi.2012, Malaise trap, F. Strumia leg; same data: 1♂, 15.vi���07.vii.2011. Specimens are deposited in the entomological collection of the Zoologische Sta- atssammlung Museum (ZSM) in Munich (Germany) and in the personal collections of FDG and PLS (Pisa University, Italy). Description. Male. Body length about 5.6 mm. Fore wing length 4 mm. Body covered with fine, short and silky pubescence. Head. Face about 0.5���0.6 �� as high as wide (width between compound eyes at the level of clypeal suture; height from antennal sockets to clypeal suture), smooth and shining with well defined and dense punctuation; clypeus smooth and shining, with scattered punctures, its apical margin slightly convex and with a small developed medial tooth; mandible about 2.5 �� as long as basally wide, teeth unequal, upper tooth clearly longer the lower one; malar space about 0.7 �� as long as mandible width; malar sulcus coriaceous; frons and vertex smooth with sparce and shallow punctures; gena smooth and shining with few inconspicuous punctures; gena roundly narrowed behind eye in dorsal view; distance between lateral ocellus and eye about 0.8���0.9 �� as long as interocellar distance; occipital carina complete, dorsally pointed, joining hypostomal carina at base of mandible; antenna with 24���25 flagellomeres, first flagellomere about 2.2���2.3 �� as long as apically wide; tyloids present, evident on 9th���12th flagellomeres. Mesosoma. Pronotum smooth and shining, with just few undefined punctures on dorsal part and small fine wrinkles on anterior and posterior margins; epomia absent; mesoscutum with dense punctures, notaulus deeply impressed in the anterior half; scutellum with dense punctures, with a hint of lateral carinae only at level of scuto-scutellar groove; mesopleuron, except for smooth speculum, covered with fine longitudinal striae, with inconspicuous punctures between striae; sternaulus impressed in the anterior half of mesopleuron; epicnemial carina present and reaching anterior margin of mesopleuron; epicnemium and mesosternum coriaceous-punctate; posterior transverse carina of mesosternum complete but weak at level of middle coxa; metapleuron smooth and shining in anterior half, coriaceous and with irregular wrinkles on posterior half, pleural carina complete; propodeum irregularly wrinkled, with carinae difficult to discern on wrinkled background, with the exception of posterior transverse carina complete; area superomedia irregular, subsquared, costula originating from base of the area superomedia, distinct only at its base; area basalis not defined; area petiolaris concave and transversally striate. Fore wing areolet regularly pentagonal; cu-a opposite Rs&M; length of Cu1 between 1m-cu and Cu1a about 1.7���1.8 �� as long as Cu1b. Hind wing with distal abscissa of Cu1 present; length of Cu1 between cu-a and M about 2.1���2.5 �� as long as cu-a. Hind coxa subpolished, punctate; hind femur about 3.3 �� as long as maximum width. Metasoma. Metasoma not laterally compressed. Metasomal tergite I with dorsal longitudinal carinae weak, median and lateral parts of postpetiole not differentiated; postpetiole irregularly punctate on median part, strigose on lateral parts; Metasomal tergite II about 1.8 �� as long as apically wide, coriaceous in the middle, slightly strigose laterally, then on apical 2/3 smooth and shining and with dense punctures; thyridium on tergite II strong and separated from the base by a distance longer than its width; metasomal tergite III smooth and shining with dense punctures; remaining metasomal tergites smooth and with dense but shallow punctures, less evident on last tergites. Color. Head black, margin of clypeus, small spots on inner orbits (sometimes absent) and scape ventrally reddishbrown, mandible (except teeth reddish), maxillary and labial palps yellow; flagellum dark brown dorsally, reddish-brown ventrally. Mesosoma black, scutellum apically and postscutellum reddish-brown, ventral hind corner of propleuron, ventral margin and dorsal hind corner of pronotum, subalar prominence, tegula yellow. Fore and mid coxae, trochanters and trochantelli yellowish-white; fore and mid legs reddish, tarsi reddish-brown; hind leg and coxa dark brown, apical part of coxa, base of femur, insertion of tibia and of all tarsomeres reddish-brown, hind trochanter, trochantellus and hind tibial spurs yellow. Metasoma with tergite I black with apical spot yellowish-red, following tergites dark brown with apical margin yellowish-red, thyridia on tergite II, tergite VII and parameres yellowish-red. Wings hyaline, veins and pterostigma yellowish-brown. Diagnosis. The male of M. strumiai differs from the female (see Fig. 5���8 in Di Giovanni et al. 2018) in having metasoma not laterally compressed, postpetiole with few rugulose punctures and tergite II slightly longer than in female, slightly coriaceous at the base then polished with dense punctures, with thyridia strong; in the color pattern, it differs in having flagellum dark brown dorsally and reddish-brown ventrally, mesosoma mostly black, with scutellum apically and postscutellum reddish-brown and subalar prominence, ventral margin and dorsal hind corner of pronotum yellow, metasoma with abdominal tergites dark brown with apical margin yellowish-red, hind femur and tibia dark brown. According to the key to the European males of Misetus by Selfa & Diller (1995: 801), the male of M. strumiai can be keyed out with M. tyloidalis Kolarov, 1985, as it has hind femur dark brown and propodeum with area superomedia not defined, but it can be distinguished from the latter by its smaller size, antenna with 24���25 flagellomeres and tyloidae starting from 8 th flagellomere, temple shorter than eye width, mesopleuron covered with fine longitudinal striae, and metasomal tergite II basally slightly coriaceous-strigose. From M. nigritulus Kolarov, 1985 it differs by its smaller size and in having propodeum with costulae distinct only at the base, dorsolateral carina of postpetiolus weakly distinct, metasomal tergite II longer than apically wide, with thyridia separated from the base of the tergite to a distance longer than its width, and tegula yellow. From males of M. oculatus Wesmael, 1845, it can be separated by smaller size, antenna with only 24��� 25 flagellomeres, propodeum with area superomedia irregularly shaped, metasomal tergite II basally slightly coriaceousstrigose, scutellum apically and postscutellum reddish-brown, hind coxa and femur dark brown. Males of M. strumiai resemble in size, irregular shape of area superomedia and color pattern small specimens M. hispanator Selfa, 1995, but can be distinguished from this species by tegulae yellow, scutellum apically and postscutellum reddish-brown, hind femur and tibia entirely dark brown, metasomal tergite II basally comparatively less strigose, coriaceous in the middle. Errata. In Di Giovanni et al. (2018), A new species of Misetus Wesmael, 1845 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini) from Italy, with updated key to the females of Palaearctic species, published in Zootaxa 4374 (4), 594���600, in the description of the female of M. strumiai is erroneously reported ���teeth unequal, lower tooth clearly longer the upper one��� (pp. 596), while it is the upper tooth that is clearly longer than the lower one., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi & Diller, Erich, 2020, Description of the male of Misetus strumiai Di Giovanni, Scaramozzino & Diller 2018 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini) from Italy, pp. 198-200 in Zootaxa 4810 (1) on pages 198-200, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4810.1.13, http://zenodo.org/record/3937068, {"references":["Di Giovanni, F., Scaramozzino, P. L. & Diller, E. (2018) A new species of Misetus Wesmael, 1845 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini) from Italy, with updated key to the females of Palaearctic species. Zootaxa, 4374 (4), 594 - 600. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4374.4.8","Selfa, J. & Diller, E. (1995) Addition to the knowledge of the Palearctic species of Misetus Wesmael [1845] (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini). Linzer biologische Beitrage, 27 (2), 795 - 806.","Kolarov, J. (1985) Two new species of the genus Misetus Wesmael [1845], from Bulgaria (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna, 6 (6), 57 - 64.","Wesmael, C. (1845) Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 18, 1 - 239. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 66034"]}

Misetus strumiai Di Giovanni, Scaramozzino & Diller, sp. nov. Figs. 5–8 Type material. Holotype, female. ITALY: Tuscany, Livorno, isle of Montecristo, 26.vi–13.vii.2012, Malaise trap, F. Strumia leg. (ZSM). Description. Female. Body length 5.4 mm. Fore wing length 2.9 mm. Head. Face about 0.4–0.5> as high as wide (width between compound eyes at the level of clypeal suture; height from antennal sockets to clypeal suture), polished with well defined punctuation. Frons and vertex polished with dense and fine punctures; gena polished with few inconspicuous punctures. Temple sublinearly rounded in dorsal view; distance between lateral ocellus and eye about 0.8> as long as interocellar distance. Clypeus polished and shining, without punctures, its apical margin slightly convex and with a small developed medial tooth. Malar space about 1.0> as long as mandible width; malar sulcus coriaceous. Mandible about 2.5> as long as basally wide, teeth unequal, lower tooth clearly longer the upper one. Labial palps 4-segmented, maxillary palps 5- segmented, the first segment medially enlarged. Occipital carina complete, joining hypostomal carina at base of mandible. Antenna with 24 flagellomeres, first flagellomere about 2.1> as long as apically wide. Mesosoma. Pronotum smooth and polished, with just few undefined punctures on dorsal part and small fine wrinkles on anterior and posterior margins; epomia absent. Mesoscutum with dense punctures, notaulus deeply impressed in the anterior half; scutellum with dense punctures, without lateral carinae. Mesopleuron, except for smooth speculum, covered with fine longitudinal striae; sternaulus impressed in the anterior half of mesopleuron; epicnemial carina present and reaching anterior margin of mesopleuron; mesosternum coriaceous–punctate; posterior transverse carina of mesosternum complete but weak at level of middle coxa. Fore wing areolet regularly pentagonal; cu-a opposite Rs &M; length of Cu1 between 1m-cu and Cu1a about 1.7> as long as Cu1b. Hind wing with distal abscissa of Cu1 present; length of Cu1 between cu-a and M about 2.2> as long as cu-a. Coxae coriaceous–punctate, subpolished. Hind femur about 2.8> as long as maximum width. Propodeum coriaceous, irregularly wrinkled, with propodeal carinae weakly marked, with the exception of posterior transverse carina and pleural carina; area superomedia as in Fig. 7, about 1.3–1.4> as long as wide and with costulae originating from basal half of the area superomedia; area basalis not defined; area petiolaris strongly concave and transversally striate; metapleuron smooth in the anterior half, coriaceous and with irregular wrinkles on posterior half. Metasoma. Metasoma, seen from above, narrowed from tergite III to apex, covered with fine, short and sparse pubescence. Tergite I with dorsal longitudinal carinae weak, median and lateral parts of postpetiole not differentiated; postpetiole with few punctures medially. Metasomal tergite II about 1.3–1.4> as long as apically wide, thyridia weakly marked and separated from the base, placed at about 0.25 the length of the tergite; tergite II slightly coriaceous at the basal 0.1, then polished, with very few scattered punctures. Remaining metasomal tergites polished and without punctures; metasomal tergites V–VII only weakly emarginate apically. Ovipositor short and upcurved, ovipositor sheaths about 0.2> as long as hind basitarsus. Color. Head entirely black, with the exception of clypeus reddish-brown, mandible yellowish-red (except red teeth), maxillary and labial palps yellowish-white; scapus and pedicellus red, flagellum red with flagellar segments 5–9 whitish (seen from inner side). Mesosoma red (including scutellum and postscutellum), dorsal part of propleuron, anterior part of mesoscutum, metapleuron and propodeum somewhat darker; upper hind corner of propleuron, tegula and subalar prominence yellowish-white. Legs red, fore and middle coxae and all trochanters yellowish-red, hind femur slightly dark red on the apical half. Metasoma red, tergite II and III basally red, apically paler. Wings hyaline, veins and pterostigma yellowish. Male. Unknown. Etymology. The new species is named in honour of Franco Strumia, a renowned Italian expert of Chrysididae who collected the specimen, in recognition of his efforts in sampling the entomological fauna of Tuscany. Differential diagnosis. Misetus strumiai sp. nov. can be clearly distinguished by all the other species of the genus by having metasomal tergite II almost completely smooth and polished, slightly coriaceous only at the basal 0.1 and with few scattered punctures and clypeus with a small developed medial tooth. Other species of Misetus have metasomal tergite II longitudinally striate or wrinkled in the basal half, and usually more densely punctuate in the apical half, and clypeus with medial tooth strong and more developed (in M. hispanator relatively small but still clearly visible in frontal view). In addition: postpetiole with median and lateral parts not differentiated and with few punctures medially (median and lateral parts usually separated, or if weakly differentiated—as in male of M. tyloidalis —then more markedly striate); antenna relatively short, with fewer than 25 segments; propodeum with area superomedia longer than wide (area superomedia as long as wide in male of M. nigritulus); mesosoma, including scutellum, legs, including hind coxa, and metasoma entirely red (mesosoma in greater part black in other species; hind coxa redas in M. oculatus —or brown to black in other species; metasoma more or less brownish-black in other species, extensively red in some specimens of M. oculatus).

Key to the females of Palaearctic species of Misetus (modified from Selfa and Diller 1995. Females of M. nigritulus Kolarov, 1985 and M. tyloidalis Kolarov, 1985 are unknown). 1 Metasoma with apical tergites apically strongly concave....................................................... 2 - Metasoma with apical tergites apically weakly concave (as in Fig. 12)............................................ 3 2 Metasoma with tergites III–VII concave apically. Occipital carina meeting hypostomal carina near the base of mandible. Propodeum with area basalis not delimited. Middle field of postpetiole punctate. Flagellum with 31–33 segments. Hind tibia completely blackish-brown...................................................... M. borealis Kusigemati, 1974 - Metasoma with tergites V–VII concave. Occipital carina meeting hypostomal carina far from the base of mandible. Propodeum with area basalis delimited. Middle field of postpetiole strigose. Flagellum with 27 segments. Hind tibia mostly red......................................................................................... M. nordicator Selfa, 1995 3 Tergite II coriaceous-rugose on the basal 2/3, the remaining part of the tergite with a weak trace of coriaceous sculpture (Fig. 11). Postpetiole apically with punctures and rugae. Clypeus with apical medial tooth strong (Fig. 10). Scutellum red or red and more or less yellow marked (Fig. 11). Hind femur completely red; hind coxa red. Metasoma extensively red, sometimes with apical tergites brownish-black (Fig. 9)............................................... M. oculatus Wesmael, 1845 - Tergite II coriaceous-strigose only basally.................................................................. 4 4 Clypeus with apical median tooth visible in frontal view (Fig. 14). Postpetiole strongly punctate and less striated apically. Tergite II basally strigose (Fig. 16). Propodeum with area superomedia subpentagonal, anterior transverse carina strong (Fig. 15). Scutellum black. Hind femur apically brown marked; hind coxa reddish-brown. Metasoma from tergite II brownish marked (Fig. 13)................................................................. M. hispanator Selfa, 1995 - Clypeus with apical median tooth weak, hardly visible in frontal view (Fig. 6). Postpetiole weakly punctate. Tergite II almost entirely polished and with few scatted punctures, slightly coriaceous only at the basal 0.1 (Fig. 8). Propodeum with area superomedia elongated, anterior transverse carina weak (Fig. 7). Scutellum red. Mesosoma and metasoma entirely red (Fig. 5)........................................................................................ M. strumiai sp. nov., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi & Diller, Erich, 2018, A new species of Misetus Wesmael, 1845 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini) from Italy, with updated key to the females of Palaearctic species, pp. 594-600 in Zootaxa 4374 (4) on page 596, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4374.4.8, http://zenodo.org/record/1156800, {"references":["Selfa, J. & Diller, E. (1995) Addition to the knowledge of the Palearctic species of Misetus Wesmael [1845] (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini). Linzer biologische Beitrage, 27 (2), 795 - 806.","Kolarov, J. (1985) Two new species of the genus Misetus Wesmael [1845], from Bulgaria (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna, 6 (6), 57 - 64.","Wesmael, C. (1845) Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 18, 1 - 239."]}

Misetus oculatus Wesmael, 1845 Figs. 1–4 and Figs. 9–12 Material: 2 females, Italy, Lombardy, Mantua, Natural Reserve of " Bosco della Fontana ", 10–24.vi.2008, Malaise trap, F. Di Giovanni det. (FDG); 1 female, same locality, 08–22.vii.2008, Malaise trap, F. Di Giovanni det. (FDG)., Published as part of Giovanni, Filippo Di, Scaramozzino, Pier Luigi & Diller, Erich, 2018, A new species of Misetus Wesmael, 1845 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Phaeogenini) from Italy, with updated key to the females of Palaearctic species, pp. 594-600 in Zootaxa 4374 (4) on page 600, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4374.4.8, http://zenodo.org/record/1156800, {"references":["Wesmael, C. (1845) Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 18, 1 - 239."]}

Abundance and diversity of insect pollinators are declining in many ecosystems worldwide. The abundance and diversity of wild and managed bees are related to the availability of continuous floral resources. In particular, in Mediterranean basin countries, the presence of wildflower spots enhances the establishment of social Apoidea, since coastal regions are usually characterized by pollen and nectar shortage in early spring and late summer. Anthyllis barba-jovis produces both nectar and pollen as important food source for bees helping them to overcome early spring period food shortage. We investigated flowering, seed set, and pollinator diversity of A. barba-jovis in arid coastal environments of the Mediterranean basin. Pollinator abundance reached a maximum in early April. Honeybees were the most common pollinators followed by bumblebees and solitary bees. Plants prevented from entomophilous pollination showed inbreeding depression with a strong decrease in seed-set. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on pollination ecology of A. barba-jovis.