Search

Biodiversity loss is advancing rapidly, and the previous international goals for halting biodiversity loss have not been met. Besides protecting biodiversity within, e.g. Finland, it is essential to understand that our current way of life is causing global biodiversity loss through, for example, overconsumption. The current paper aims to increase understanding of the complex multi-level human impacts beyond our borders, resulting in significant global challenges. We discuss biodiversity loss and consumption with telecoupling, a phenomenon related to the geographical separation of consumption and production of goods and services that accelerates climate change and biodiversity loss in distant locations through international trade.

Raportin yhteenveto LUONTOPANEELIN KESKEISET HUOMIOT JA SUOSITUKSET • Jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn osuutta kannattaa merkittävästi kasvattaa taloudellisista syistä. Valtaosa suomalaisista ja pohjoismaisista jatkuvapeitteistä ja jaksollista metsänkäsittelyä vertailevista tutkimuksista koskee puuntuotantomäärää metsänkäsittelyn taloudellisen tuloksen sijaan. Mahdollisimman suuri puuntuotannon määrä voi olla edullista puun ostajalle, mutta se ei välttämättä ole taloudellisesti paras vaihtoehto maanomistajan eli puun tuottajan eikä myöskään puun tuottajien ja ostajien yhteenlasketun taloudellisen tuloksen eli kansantalouden näkökulmasta. Vaikka hakkuukertymät voivat jatkuvapeitteisessä metsänkäsittelyssä jäädä jaksollista käsittelyä alhaisemmiksi, jatkuvapeitteisen käsittelyn taloudellinen kannattavuus voi olla samaa tasoa tai parempi kuin jaksollisen metsänkäsittelyn kannattavuus. Näin on etenkin silloin, kun korkotaso, joka kuvaa pääoman tuottoa vaihtoehtoisessa parhaassa sijoituskohteessa, on yli 2 prosenttia ja laskennassa huomioidaan jaksollisen metsänkäsittelyn uudistamiskustannukset. • Jatkuvapeitteinen metsänkäsittely tukee metsien käytön yhteiskunnallista hyväksyttävyyttä. Jatkuvapeitteisen käsittelyn metsät koetaan maisema-arvojen ja virkistyskäytön kannalta yleensä houkuttelevampina kuin jaksollisen käsittelyn metsät.Taloudellisissa optimointimalleissa metsänkäsittelyn monitavoitteisuuden lisääminen kasvattaa jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn kilpailukykyä verrattuna jaksolliseen käsittelyyn. • Jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn osuutta kannattaa merkittävästi kasvattaa metsätuhoriskien pienentämiseksi. Jatkuvapeitteinen käsittely lisää metsikön rakenteellista vaihtelevuutta ja vähentää tuulituhojen riskiä. Kuusikoiden kirjanpainajatuhojen ja juurikäävän riski on olemassa käsittelytavasta riippumatta. Taloustieteellisissä optimointimalleissa metsätuhoriski tuottaa puhtaasti taloudellisen perustelun lisätä jatkuvapeitteisenä hoidettavan metsän osuutta. • Hiilinielujen ja -varastojen huomioiminen metsän optimoidussa käsittelyssä on monitahoinen kysymys, joka ei selviä tarkastelemalla vain yhtä osatekijää kuten metsän kasvua, hiilivarastoa kasvavassa puustossa, hiilivarastoa puutuotteissa tai metsäbiomassan fossiilisten polttoaineiden substituutiovaikutusta. Yksittäisiin osatekijöihin kohdistuvan tarkastelun sijaan hiilen sidontaa on arvioitava systeemisenä kokonaisuutena. Taloustieteellisissä optimointimallinnuksissa hiilivirtojen lisääminen mallin yhdeksi tavoitteeksi lisää jatkuvapeitteisen käsittelyn edullisuutta suhteessa jaksolliseen käsittelyyn. • Jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn osuutta kannattaa merkittävästi kasvattaa virkistyskäyttöarvojen turvaamiseksi. Kaupunki- ja virkistysmetsissä kannattaa siirtyä kokonaan jatkuvapeitteiseen metsänkäsittelyyn. Hakkuut vähentävät metsän maisema- ja virkistysarvoa tyypillisesti sitä enemmän, mitä voimakkaampia ne ovat. • Jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn osuutta kannattaa merkittävästi kasvattaa luonnon monimuotoisuuden turvaamiseksi. Jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn hakkuun aiheuttama häiriö luonnolle on pienempi verrattuna avohakkuun aiheuttamaan häiriöön. Sekä jaksollisessa että jatkuvapeitteisessä metsänkäsittelyssä on erikseen huolehdittava metsäluonnolle tärkeiden luonnon monimuotoisuus piirteiden säilymisestä. Tällaisia ovat esimerkiksi kuolleet ja lahoavat puut, isokokoiset ja vanhat puuyksilöt, lehtipuut ja vesistöjen suojavyöhykkeet. • Ojitetuilla turvemailla kannattaa siirtyä kokonaan jatkuvapeitteiseen metsän käsittelyyn vesistöhaittojen minimoimiseksi. Jatkuvapeitteisenä käsiteltävän metsän puusto vaikuttaa pitävän turvemailla vedenkorkeuden toivotulla tasolla, vähentää kunnostusojitusten tarvetta ja pienentää vesistöhaittoja. Vesilain 2:7 mukaisen haittojen minimointivelvoitteen mukaisesti jatkuvapeitteinen metsänkäsittely tulisi turvemailla ja kaikkien pienvesien välittömässä läheisyydessä säätää ennaltaehkäisevästi ainoaksi sallituksi metsänkäsittelymuodoksi. • Pohjois-Suomessa kannattaa siirtyä pääsääntöisesti jatkuvapeitteiseen metsänkäsittelyyn metsätalouden porotaloudelle aiheuttamien haittojen minimoimiseksi. Jäkälälaidunten tilaa koskevien tutkimusten perusteella jaksollisen metsänkäsittelyn ongelmana on, että siemenpuuhakkuiden jälkeen metsän tiheys on liian alhainen ja taimikon kasvuvaiheessa tiheys on liian korkea. Jatkuvapeitteinen metsänkäsittely on omiaan vähentämään konflikteja porotalouden ja metsäteollisuuden välillä. Suurin osa valtion maista sijaitsee Pohjois-Suomessa, missä taloustieteellisten tarkastelujen valossa jatkuvapeitteinen metsänkäsittely on lähes kaikissa tapauksissa jaksollista kasvatusta taloudellisesti kannattavampaa. • Jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn osuuden kasvattaminen ei poista metsäluonnon lisäsuojelun tarvetta. EU:n biodiversiteettistrategiassa on kolme suojelualueisiin liittyvää tavoitetta: i) vuoteen 2030 mennessä oikeudellisen suojelun piirissä on vähintään 30 prosenttia sekä EU:n maa- että merialueista, ii) tästä vähintään kolmannes, eli 10 prosenttia pinta-alasta, on suojeltu tiukasti ja iii) pinta-alasta riippumatta kaikki jäljellä olevat luonnontilaiset metsät ja vanhat metsät on suojeltu tiukasti. • Jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn osuuden kasvattaminen voi helpottaa metsä luonnon suojelutavoitteiden saavuttamista. EU:n biodiversiteettistrategian alustavan ohjeistuksen mukaan oikeudellinen suojelu tarkoittaa alueen osoittamista pitkä aikaiseen suojeluun kansallisen tai kansainvälisen säädöksen, hallinnollisen päätöksen tai sopimuksen perusteella. Ohjeistuksen mukaan myös suojelualue-verkostoa tukevat luonnon monimuotoisuutta turvaavat alueet eli niin sanotut OECM-alueet voivat tiettyjen reunaehtojen täyttyessä olla oikeudellisen suojelun 30 prosentin tavoitteen piiriin kuuluvia alueita. Luontopaneeli katsoo, että osa 30 prosentin suojelu tavoitteesta, esimerkiksi 5–10 prosenttiyksikköä, voitaisiin kattaa jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn kohteilla edellyttäen, että kohteet asetetaan maanomistajan vapaasta tahdosta kansallisen säädöksen tai hallinnollisen päätöksen tai sopimuksen perusteella pysyvästi jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn piiriin niin, että alueelta on rajoitetusti mahdollista poistaa puustoa, mutta vain jatkuvapeitteisen metsän käsittelyn periaatteita noudattaen ja luontoarvot tavanomaista merkittävästi paremmin huomioiden. Luontopaneeli korostaa, ettei nykyisiin suojelualueisiin eikä tuleviin tiukasti suojeltaviin alueisiin tule kohdistaa mitään metsätaloustoimia, ei edes jatkuvapeitteistä metsänkäsittelyä. • Metsäneuvontatilanteissa metsänomistajille on turvattava aito valinnanmahdollisuus heidän omien tavoitteidensa mukaisesti. Tilanteessa, jossa maanomistajilla on erilaisia tavoitteita, maanomistajasta riippumattomia yleisiä kaikkiin tilanteisin sopivia metsänhoidon ohjeita ei voi määritellä. Metsäalan toimijoita tulee velvoittaa selvittämään maanomistajan tavoitteet ennen neuvontaa. Yhteys neuvonnan ja neuvojan ehdotetuista toimenpiteistä saaman taloudellisen edun välillä on syytä selvittää, ja sen ollessa olemassa, purkaa. • On selvitettävä, kuinka jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn osuuden lisääminen vaikuttaa metsähakkeen tuotospotentiaaliin. Venäläisen metsähakkeen tuonnin loppuminen maaliskuussa 2022 saattaa kasvattaa kotimaisen metsähakkeen kysyntää ja muuttunut markkinatilanne voi muuttaa energiapuun korjuun kannattavuutta. • On selvitettävä, kuinka jatkuvaan kasvatukseen siirtyminen vaikuttaa puunkäyttöön.Jatkuvapeitteiseen metsänkäsittelyyn siirtymisen seurauksena mahdollisesti muuttuvilla tukki-, kuitu- ja energiapuun osuuksilla voi olla vaikutuksia metsäteollisuuteen ja lämmöntuotantoon. • On selvitettävä, aiheuttaako Natura 2000 -alueeseen rajautuva avohakkuu luonnonsuojelulain 64 a §:ssä kiellettyä merkittävää haittaa suojelun perusteena oleville luonnonarvoille. Jos haittaa aiheutuu, on suojelualueeseen rajautuvat avohakkuut luonnonsuojelulain vastaisina kiellettävä. • Haitan aiheuttamisen riskin pienentämiseksi kannattaa kaikkien erityisen tärkeiden elinympäristöjen läheisyydessä avohakkuiden sijaan suosia jatkuvapeitteisen metsänkäsittelyn menetelmiä. Tämä suositus tulisi ottaa viipymättä käyttöön erityisesti valtion omistamissa talousmetsissä.

Acrotaphus fascipennis (Cresson, 1865) (Figs 68–73) Epimecis fascipennis Cresson, 1865: 33. Lectotype ♀ Cuba (ANSP), designated by Cresson, 1916: 31 [examined] Hymenoepimecis fascipennis (Cresson), Townes, 1946: 36 Acrotaphus fascipennis (Cresson), Townes & Townes, 1960: 256. Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other Acrotaphus by the combination of the following characters: 1) margin of gena behind eyes flat in dorsal view; 2) margin of gena 0.3× length of eye in dorsal view; 3) posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.1× its diameter in dorsal view; 4) metasoma entirely orange; 5) hind leg orange, with distal tibia 0.4 and tarsus brownish; 6) ovipositor robust, 1.1× as long as hind tibia. Comments. Additional characters to the original description (♀) are as follows: body [10.0] mm; lower face [0.9]× as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna); margin of gena behind the eyes flat in dorsal view; margin of gena [0.3]× length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by [0.1]× its diameter in dorsal view; distance from tegula to head greater than [0.4]× distance from tegula to hind margin of propodeum; epicnemial carina present ventrally, extending until reaching the level of the lower corner of the pronotum laterally; fore wing [9.2] mm; cu-a opposite to the base of Rs&M; 2 rs-m [0.7]× as long as abscissa of M between 2 rs-m and 2 m-cu; hind wing with abscissa of Cu 1 between M and cu-a [0.9]× length of cu- a; tarsal claw with basal lobe quadrangular, with claw apex slightly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe; tergite I [1.7]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II [1.4]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III [1.2]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergites IV–V [1.2]× as long as posteriorly broad; ovipositor robust, [1.1]× as long as hind tibia; lower valve with swelling in the mid region. Male. Unknown. Distribution. Cuba (Fig 74). Biological notes. Host unknown. Material examined. Lectotype: ♀, CUBA, [without other information], #626, ANSP., Published as part of Pádua, Diego G., Sääksjärvi, Ilari E., Monteiro, Ricardo F. & Oliveira, Marcio L., 2020, Review of the New World genus Acrotaphus Townes, 1960 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae), with descriptions of fifteen new species, pp. 1-62 in Zootaxa 4719 (1) on page 24, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4719.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3602788, {"references":["Townes, H. & Townes, M. (1960) Ichneumon-Flies of America North of Mexico: 2. Subfamilies Ephialtinae, Xoridinae, Acaenitinae. United State National Museum Bulletin, 216, 1 - 676. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.216.1 - 2"]}

Acrotaphus Townes, 1960 Acrotaphus Townes in Townes & Townes, 1960: 256. Type-species: Epimecis wiltii Cresson, 1870, by original designation. Diagnosis: Acrotaphus species can be distinguished from all other species of the Polysphincta group of genera by the combination of the following characters: 1) body smooth and polished; 2) head rounded, in frontal view; 3) occipital carina very strong, flange-like, complete and not dipped mediodorsally; 4) vein 3 rs-m absent, 2 rs-m very long; 5) pronotum more or less elongated, thickened, without any kind of adapted structures, higher than long (posterior margin), in lateral view; 6) epomia absent; 7) mesoscutum smooth; 8) epicnemial carina present, strong ventrally, producing forward in an unsharpe angulation; 9) submetapleural carina absent; 10) propodeum smooth, without carinae; 11) ovipositor 0.9���1.8�� longer than hind tibia; 12) lower valve of ovipositor with a swelling in the base and mid region; 13) male with paramere truncated apically; 14) male with bristles in the anterolateral region of the volsellar lamina, just below the base of the digitus., Published as part of P��dua, Diego G., S����ksj��rvi, Ilari E., Monteiro, Ricardo F. & Oliveira, Marcio L., 2020, Review of the New World genus Acrotaphus Townes, 1960 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae), with descriptions of fifteen new species, pp. 1-62 in Zootaxa 4719 (1) on page 5, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4719.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3602788, {"references":["Townes, H. & Townes, M. (1960) Ichneumon-Flies of America North of Mexico: 2. Subfamilies Ephialtinae, Xoridinae, Acaenitinae. United State National Museum Bulletin, 216, 1 - 676. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.216.1 - 2"]}

Acrotaphus cuzconus Pádua & Sääksjärvi sp. n. (Figs 48–51) Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other species of Acrotaphus by the combination of the following characters: 1) fore wing blackish with one yellowish band extending backwards from anterior margin, just proximal to the pterostigma to the encounter of cu-a to base of the Rs&M; 2) metasoma entirely reddish orange; 3) female tarsal claw with basal lobe quadrangular, with claw apex slightly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe; 4) posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.1× its diameter in dorsal view. Description. Female. Body [13.0] mm. Head. Lower face [0.8]× as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna), flat, with scattered punctures which bear long conspicuous bristles; head in dorsal view with margin of gena flat behind eyes; margin of gena [0.5]× length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by [0.1]× its diameter in dorsal view. Mesosoma. Pronotum moderately long, smooth and polished, with distance from tegula to head greater than [0.5]× distance from tegula to hind margin of propodeum; mesoscutum smooth and polished, with notaulus weakly marked; scutellum in dorsal view triangular; mesopleuron polished, with fine bristles ventrally; epicnemial carina present ventrally, extending until reaching the level of the lower corner of the pronotum laterally; metapleuron polished, with fine bristles evenly spaced; propodeum smooth dorsally, laterally with scattered fine bristles. Fore wing [11.5] mm; cu-a opposite to the base of Rs&M; 2 rs-m [0.8]× as long as abscissa of M between 2 rs-m and 2 m-cu; hind wing with abscissa of Cu 1 between M and cu-a [1.3]× length of cu-a. Tarsal claw with basal lobe quadrangular, with claw apex slightly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe. Metasoma. Tergite I [1.6]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II [1.5]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III [1.45]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergites IV–V [1.3]× as long as posteriorly broad; ovipositor slender, [1.5]× as long as hind tibia; lower valve with slightly swelling in the base and mid region. Coloration. Head black, except apical margin of clypeus slightly yellowish, mouthparts yellowish, except apex of mandible black; antenna dark brown. Mesosoma and metasoma entirely reddish orange. Anterior leg orange and mid and hind legs entirely black. Fore wing blackish with one yellowish band extending backwards from anterior margin, just proximal to the pterostigma to the encounter of cu-a to base of the Rs&M; hind wing black with apex yellowish; pterostigma yellowish. Ovipositor brownish. Male. Unknown. Type material: Holotype: ♀, PERU, CU [= Cusco], La Convención, Echarate, CC. [=Comunidad] Santa Rosa, 12°33’51,49’’S / 73°05’38,33’’w, 1701 m., 19.ix.2010, Light (M. Alvarado & J. Peralta), ZMUT. Distribution. Peru (Fig 52). Biological notes. Host unknown. Etymology. The specific name refers to Cuzco, Peru. Comments. Acrotaphus cuzconus sp. n. closely resembles A. monotaenius sp. n. mainly by having fore wing blackish with one yellowish band extending backwards from anterior margin, just proximal to the pterostigma to the encounter of cu-a to base of the Rs&M, and differs from it mainly by having tarsal claw with basal lobe quadrangular, with claw apex slightly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe, mid leg entirely black and metasoma entirely reddish orange (tarsal claw with basal lobe longitudinally elongated, with claw apex clearly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe, mid leg entirely orange and metasoma entirely black, in A. monotaenius sp. n.).

Acrotaphus dolichopus P��dua sp. n. (Figs 53���56) Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other species of Acrotaphus by the combination of the following characters: 1) posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.4���0.6�� its diameter in dorsal view; 2) fore wing yellowish hyaline with two black bands; 3) tarsal claw with basal lobe longitudinally elongated, with claw apex clearly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe. Description. Female. Body [10.6] 10.5���14.0 mm. Head. Lower face [0.9] 0.9���1.0�� as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna), flat, with scattered punctures which bear long conspicuous bristles; head in dorsal view with margin of the gena flat behind the eyes; margin of gena [0.4]�� length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by [0.4] 0.4���0.6�� its diameter in dorsal view. Mesosoma. Pronotum moderately long, smooth and polished, with distance from tegula to head greater than [0.5] 0.5���0.6�� distance from tegula to hind margin of propodeum; mesoscutum smooth and polished, with notaulus weakly marked; scutellum in dorsal view triangular; mesopleuron polished, with fine bristles anteriorly and ventrally; epicnemial carina present ventrally, extending until reaching the level of the lower corner of the pronotum laterally; metapleuron polished, with sparse, fine bristles evenly spaced and with a strongly longitudinal groove in lower part below spiracle; propodeum smooth dorsally, laterally with scattered fine bristles. Fore wing [9.5] 9.5���11.0 mm; cu-a opposite to the base of Rs&M; 2 rs-m [0.6] 0.6���0.7�� as long as abscissa of M between 2 rs-m and 2 m-cu; hind wing with abscissa of Cu 1 between M and cu-a [0.8] 0.8���1.3�� length of cu-a. Tarsal claw with basal lobe longitudinally elongated, with claw apex clearly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe. Metasoma. Tergite I [1.5] 1.3���1.6�� as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II [1.1] 1.1���1.5�� as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III [1.0] 1.0���1.3�� as long as posteriorly broad; tergites IV���V [0.85] 0.85���1.2�� as long as posteriorly broad; ovipositor slender, [1.6] 1.5���1.8�� as long as hind tibia; lower valve with slightly swelling in the base and mid region. Coloration. Head black, except apical margin of clypeus slightly orange, mouthparts orange, except apex of mandible black; antenna brownish. Mesosoma entirely orange. Metasoma orange with posterior margins of tergites II���IV black and tergites VI+ black. Anterior and mid leg entirely orange, hind leg entirely black. Wings yellowish; fore wing with apex distal to 2 rs-m black, and with a black median band extending backwards from anterior margin, just proximal to the pterostigma, right through the 1 st subdiscal cell; pterostigma yellowish. Ovipositor orange and sheath dark brown. Male. Unknown. Variation. Three females from Panama (one specimen) and French Guiana (two specimens) with pronotum black, except its apical margin; metasoma orange, with posterior margin black in the tergite IV and tergites V+ black; pronotum orange, except anterior part black; and metasoma with tergites VI+ black. We think they are conspecific, but we are not treating them as paratypes. Type material: Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL, SP [= S��o Paulo], Luiz Ant��nio, Est. [=Esta����o] Ecol��gica de Jata��, Mata ciliar, Pont I, 21��36���47������S / 47��49���04������O, 29.iv.2009, Light trap (R.I. R. Lara and team cols.), APTA. Paratype: Brazil: same location type, but Pont II, 15.x.2009, ♀, APTA. Other material examined: French Guiana: 33 Km SE Roura on Kaw Rd., 04��34.135���N / 052��11.150���W, 227 m., MV Light, 16���17.iv.2007 (D.G. Hall & J.E. Eger cols.), ♀, FSCA; idem, but Amazone Nature Lodge, 30 Km SE Roura on Kaw Rd., 04��33.570���N / 052��12.433���W, 300 m., 10���18.iv.2007, ♀, FSCA. Panama: Barro Colorado I [=Island], Canal Zone, 29.vii.1956 (C.W. & M.E. Rettenmeyer cols.), ♀, CNC. Distribution. Brazil, French Guiana and Panama (Fig 57). Biological notes. Host unknown. Etymology. The specific name come from Greek ���dolicho��� =long + ���pus��� =footh, referring to the basal lobe in the tarsal claw being longitudinally elongated. Comments. Acrotaphus dolichopus sp. n. closely resembles A. nambilloensis sp. n. mainly by having tarsal claw with basal lobe longitudinally elongated, with claw apex clearly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe. It differs from it mainly by having posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.4���0.6�� its diameter in dorsal view (posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.2�� its diameter in dorsal view, in A. nambilloensis sp. n.)., Published as part of P��dua, Diego G., S����ksj��rvi, Ilari E., Monteiro, Ricardo F. & Oliveira, Marcio L., 2020, Review of the New World genus Acrotaphus Townes, 1960 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae), with descriptions of fifteen new species, pp. 1-62 in Zootaxa 4719 (1) on pages 20-22, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4719.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3602788

Acrotaphus micrus P��dua sp. n. (Figs 161���164) Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other Acrotaphus by the combination of the following characters: 1) margin of gena behind eyes convex in dorsal view; 2) posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.6�� its diameter in dorsal view; 3) mesosoma orange with pronotum black, except its distal half orange and metapleuron black; 4) metasoma orange with tergites V+ black; 5) ovipositor slender, 1.5�� as long as hind tibia. Description. Female. Body [5.8] mm. Head. Lower face [1.1]�� as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna), flat, with scattered punctures which bear long conspicuous bristles; head, in dorsal view, with margin of gena convex behind eyes; margin of gena [0.6]�� length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by [0.6]�� its diameter in dorsal view. Mesosoma. Pronotum moderately long, smooth and polished, with distance from tegula to head greater than [0.5]�� distance from tegula to hind margin of propodeum; mesoscutum smooth and polished, with notaulus weakly marked; scutellum in dorsal view triangular; mesopleuron polished, with fine bristles anteriorly and ventrally; epicnemial carina present ventrally, extending until reaching the level of the lower corner of the pronotum laterally; metapleuron polished, with sparse, fine bristles evenly spaced and with a strongly longitudinal groove in lower part, below spiracle; propodeum smooth dorsally, laterally with scattered fine bristles. Fore wing [5.5] mm; cu-a opposite to the base of Rs&M; 2 rs-m [0.6]�� as long as abscissa of M between 2 rs-m and 2 m-cu; hind wing with abscissa of Cu 1 between M and cu-a [0.8]�� length of cu-a. Tarsal claw with basal lobe quadrangular, with claw apex slightly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe. Metasoma. Tergite I [1.35]�� as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II [1.1]�� as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III [1.0]�� as long as posteriorly broad; tergites IV���V [1.0]�� as long as posteriorly broad; ovipositor slender, [1.5]�� as long as hind tibia; lower valve with slightly swelling on the base and mid region. Coloration. Head black, except apical margin of clypeus slightly yellowish, mouthparts orange, except apex of mandible black; antenna dark brown. Mesosoma orange, with pronotum black, except distal half orange and metapleuron black. Metasoma orange with tergites V+ black. Anterior and mid leg orange, except mid coxa black, hind leg entirely black. Wings yellowish; fore wing with apex distal to 2 rs-m black, and with a black median band extending backwards from anterior margin, just proximal to the pterostigma, right through the 1 st subdiscal cell; pterostigma yellowish. Ovipositor yellowish and sheath dark brown. Male. Unknown. Type material: Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL, MG [= Minas Gerais], S��o Gon��alo do Rio Abaixo, Esta����o Ambiental Peti / CEMIG, 19��53���14������S / 43��22���06������W, 12.vii.2002 (A.F. Kumagai col.), #1500545, UFMG. Distribution. Brazil (Fig 165). Biological notes. Host unknown. Etymology. The specific name come from the Greek word ���micro��� =small, referring to the small size of the type-specimen. Comments. Acrotaphus micrus sp. n. closely resembles A. kourou sp. n. mainly by having the margin of gena convex behind eyes in dorsal view, posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.6�� its diameter in dorsal view and metapleuron and mid coxa black. It differs from it by having mesosoma orange with pronotum black, except its distal half orange and metapleuron black and ovipositor slender, 1.5�� as long as hind tibia (mesosoma black, except tegula, scutellum, postscutellum and posterior region of propodeum orange and ovipositor slender, 1.2�� as long as hind tibia, in A. kourou sp. n.)., Published as part of P��dua, Diego G., S����ksj��rvi, Ilari E., Monteiro, Ricardo F. & Oliveira, Marcio L., 2020, Review of the New World genus Acrotaphus Townes, 1960 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae), with descriptions of fifteen new species, pp. 1-62 in Zootaxa 4719 (1) on pages 43-45, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4719.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3602788

Acrotaphus kourou Pádua & Sääksjärvi sp. n. (Figs 127–135) Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other Acrotaphus by the combination of the following characters: 1) margin of gena behind eyes convex in dorsal view; 2) posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.6× its diameter in dorsal view; 3) mesosoma black, except tegula, scutellum, postscutellum and posterior region of propodeum orange; 4) ovipositor slender, 1.2× as long as hind tibia. Description. Female. Body [6.0] mm. Head. Lower face [1.1]× as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna), flat, with scattered punctures which bear long conspicuous bristles; head in dorsal view with margin of gena convex behind eyes; margin of gena [0.65]× length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by [0.6]× its diameter in dorsal view. Mesosoma. Pronotum moderately long, smooth and polished, with distance from tegula to head greater than [0.65]× distance from tegula to hind margin of propodeum; mesoscutum smooth and polished, with notaulus weakly marked; scutellum, in dorsal view, more or less triangular; mesopleuron polished, with fine bristles ventrally; epicnemial carina present ventrally, extending until reaching the level of the lower corner of the pronotum laterally; metapleuron polished, with fine bristles evenly spaced; propodeum smooth dorsally, laterally with scattered fine bristles. Fore wing [5.2] mm; cu-a opposite to the base of Rs&M; 2 rs-m [0.5]× as long as abscissa of M between 2 rs-m and 2 m-cu; hind wing with abscissa of Cu 1 between M and cu-a [0.65]× length of cu-a. Tarsal claw with basal lobe quadrangular, with claw apex slightly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe. Metasoma. Tergite I [1.4]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II [1.0]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III [1.0]× as long as posteriorly broad; tergites IV–V [1.0]× as long as posteriorly broad; ovipositor slender, [1.2]× as long as hind tibia; lower valve with slightly swelling in the base and mid region. Coloration. Head black, with clypeus brownish, mouthparts yellowish, except apex of mandible black; antenna dark brown. Mesosoma black, except tegula, scutellum, postscutellum and posterior region of propodeum orange. Metasoma orange with tergite V black, except basal region orange and tergites VI+ black. Anterior leg orange, mid leg orange, except coxa black and hind leg entirely black. Wings yellowish; fore wing with apex distal to 2 rs-m black, and with a black median band extending backwards from anterior margin, just proximal to the pterostigma, right through the 1 st subdiscal cell; pterostigma yellowish. Ovipositor brownish, except apex pallid and sheath dark brown. Male. (Figs 130–131). Similar to female in structure and coloration, except body 0.7 mm; lower face 1.0–1.1× as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna); head in dorsal view with margin of gena convex behind eyes; margin of gena 0.6× length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.8× its diameter in dorsal view; fore wing 6.5 mm; tergite I 1.3–1.4× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II 1.1× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III 1.0× as long as posteriorly broad; sternite IX (Fig 133) longer than high, with lateral and anterior margins strongly sclerotised, lateral margin flat and posterior margin slightly concave in central region, with few bristles widely spaced posteriorly. Genital capsule (Figs 134–135): Paramere truncated apically, slightly narrower than the parameral lamina, with bristles except in posterior margin; volsellar lamina with spaced bristles laterally and apically, except on the median and posterior regions and with a set of about four bristles in anterolateral region, just below the base of the digitus; cuspis robust with about five to six teeth more or less aligned in the mid part until apex and with some small bristles in basal region and spaced laterally in apical region; digitus with teeth on apex, rounded distally and angular ventrally, with the margins of the apical region narrower than base; aedeagus with small teeth on apex and its apex slightly curved downward in lateral view. We do not entirely sure of this association with females, so we are not treating them here as paratypes. Type material. Holotype: ♀, FRENCH GUIANA, Kourou, piste Soumourou, ix.2002 (D. Faure rec.), ZMUT. Paratypes: some holotype, but M. [= Montagne] de Kaw, Patawa, viii.2003 (O. Morvan leg.), 1♀, ZMUT. Other material examined. Peru: CU [= Cusco], La Convención, Echarate, CC. [=Comunidad] Tupac Amaru, 11°56’42,14’’S / 72°54’57,78’’W, 444 m., 12–14.x.2008, Light (M. Alvarado & E. Rázuri leg.), 1♂ [with last tergites extracted], ZMUT; idem, but Timpia, 12°06’47,04’’S / 72°49’34,56’’W, 519 m., 20–21.x.2009, 1♂, ZMUT. Distribution. French Guiana and Peru (Fig 136). Biological notes. Host unknown. Etymology. The specific name (in apposition) refers to type locality, Kourou, French Guiana. Comments. Acrotaphus kourou sp. n. closely resembles A. micrus sp. n. mainly by the margin of gena being convex behind eyes in dorsal view and mid coxa black. It differs from it by having mesosoma black, except tegula, scutellum, postscutellum and posterior region of propodeum orange and ovipositor 1.2× as long as hind tibia (mesosoma orange with pronotum black, except its distal half orange and metapleuron black and ovipositor 1.5× as long as hind tibia, in A. micrus sp. n.).

Acrotaphus mexicanus (Cameron, 1886) (Figs 151–159) Epimecis mexicana Cameron, 1886: 271. Holotype ♀, Mexico (BNHM) [examined]. Acrotaphus mexicanus (Cameron), Townes & Townes, 1960: 256 Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other species of Acrotaphus by the combination of the following characters: 1) margin of gena behind eyes flat (convex in some males), in dorsal view; 2) occipital carina forming a narrow “neck”; 3) posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.2–0.4× (0.5–0.7× in males) its diameter in dorsal view; 4) hind leg entirely black; 5) ovipositor slender, 1.6–1.8× as long as hind tibia. Redescription. Female. Body [10.0] 10.0–13.0 mm. Head. Lower face [0.9] 0.7–0.9× as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna), flat, with scattered punctures which bear long conspicuous bristles; head in dorsal view with margin of gena flat behind eyes; margin of gena [0.5] 0.4–0.5× length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by [0.25] 0.2–0.4× its diameter in dorsal view; occipital carina forming a narrow “neck”. Mesosoma. Pronotum moderately long, smooth and polished, with distance from tegula to head greater than [0.45] 0.4–0.6× distance from tegula to hind margin of propodeum; mesoscutum smooth and polished, with notaulus weakly marked; scutellum in dorsal view triangular; mesopleuron polished, with fine bristles anteriorly and ventrally; epicnemial carina present ventrally, extending until reaching the level of the lower corner of the pronotum laterally; metapleuron polished, with sparse, fine bristles evenly spaced and with a strongly longitudinal groove in lower part below spiracle; propodeum smooth dorsally, laterally with scattered fine bristles. Fore wing [9.0] 8.0–11.0 mm; cu-a opposite to the base of Rs&M; 2 rs-m [0.6] 0.6–0.8× as long as abscissa of M between 2 rs-m and 2 m-cu; hind wing with abscissa of Cu 1 between M and cu-a [0.7] 0.7–1.1× length of cu-a. Tarsal claw with basal lobe quadrangular, with claw apex slightly overtaking the posterior margin of lobe. Metasoma. Tergite I [1.6] 1.6–1.9× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II [1.3] 1.25–1.5× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III [1.05] 1.0–1.4× as long as posteriorly broad; tergites IV–V [1.1] 1.0–1.4× as long as posteriorly broad; ovipositor slender, [1.7] 1.5–1.7× as long as hind tibia; lower valve with slightly swelling in the base and mid region. Coloration. Head black, with anterior margin of the clypeus orange, mouthparts orange except base and apex of the mandible blackish antenna dark brown. Mesosoma orange, with pronotum black except its posterior margin blackish. Metasoma orange with tergites V+ black. Anterior and mid leg entirely orange, hind leg entirely black. Wings yellowish; fore wing with apex distal to 2 rs-m black, and with a black median band extending backwards from anterior margin, just proximal to the pterostigma, right through the 1 st subdiscal cell; pterostigma yellowish. Ovipositor orange and sheath dark brown. Male. (Fig 154–155). Similar to female except body 7.0–12.0 mm; lower face 0.85–1.0× as broad as high (from supraclypeal suture to base of antenna); head in dorsal view with margin of gena flat or slightly convex behind eyes; margin of gena 0.5–0.7× length of eye in dorsal view; posterior ocelli separated from eyes by 0.5–0.7× its diameter in dorsal view; fore wing 7.0–9.0 mm; tergite I 1.2–1.5× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite II 1.1–1.2× as long as posteriorly broad; tergite III 1.0–1.1× as long as posteriorly broad; sternite IX (Fig 157) longer than high, with anterior margin strongly sclerotised, lateral margin flat and posterior margin concave centrally, with few bristles widely spaced posteriorly. Genital capsule (Figs 158–159): Paramere truncated apically, slightly narrower than the parameral lamina, with bristles except on posterior margin; volsellar lamina with spaced bristles lateromedially and apically, except on inner margin and posterior part and with a set of five bristles in anterolateral region, just below the base of the digitus; cuspis robust with about seven teeth more or less aligned in the mid part until apex and with four to six few bristles in basal region and spaced laterally in apical region; digitus with teeth on apex, rounded distally and angular ventrally, with the margins of the apical region narrower than base; aedeagus with few teeth on apex and its apex slightly curved downward in lateral view. Variation. The Mexican specimens have mesosoma blackish, the type-specimen has black pronotum, except its posterior margin orange and other specimen from Veracruz has only propleuron black. Brazilian specimens have the mesosoma entirely orange and metasoma black, except tergite I and anterior margin of the tergite II (two examples from Espírito Santo state) and tergites II–IV orange with posterior margin with slender black band (one example from Tocantins state). Material examined: Holotype: ♀, MEXICO, Cornu vacca [sic] [= Cuernavaca], 1871 (Bilimek), #HYM 3b.2113 [sic], #010202132, BNHM. Brazil: AM [= Amazonas], Manaus, ZF 2, Km 14, road, 15–18.vi.2004, Light (J.A. Rafael, C.S. Motta, F. Godoi, S. Trovisco & A. Silva F° leg.), ♂ [with genitalia extracted], INPA; Rondônia, Porto Velho, Parque Natural Municipal de Porto Velho, Borda, xii.2008, Malaise (S.S. Gadelha col.), ♀, INPA; TO [=Tocantins], Palmas, Parque Estadual do Lajeado, Córrego da Onça, 03°56’30,9’’S / 54°52’30,4’’W, 02–08.vi.2016, Arm. [= Trap] Pensilvânia (G. Amora, A.P. Oliveira, J.S. Oliveira, R. Keppler col.), ♀, INPA; ES [=Espírito Santo], Cariacica, Res. [= Reserva] Biol. [= Biológica] Duas Bocas, 24.vi.1997, Swepping (C.O. Azevedo col.), ♀, #61578, UFES. Ecuador: Dept. [= Department] Orellana, Onkonegare, 00°39’25,7’’S / 76°27’10.8’’W, a.s.l.: 216 m., Fogging, Lot #1061 (T. L. Erwin leg.), ♀, ZMUT; idem, but 01.x.1996, Lot #1692, ♂, ZMUT; idem, but 01.x.1996, Lot #1684, ♂, ZMUT; idem, but 21.vi.1996, Lot #1546, ♂, ZMUT; idem, but 09.x.1994, Lot #918, ♂, ZMUT. Peru: Madre de Dios, Rio Tampobata, 12°50’S / 69°17’W, a.s.l.: 290 m., 10.ix.1984 Canopy fogging (T. L. Erwin leg.), ♀, ZMUT. Mexico: Veracruz, Coyame, Lake Catemaco, 10–18.vii.1963, Black lts [=light] (D. R. Whitehead), ♀, FSCA. Distribution. Brazil *, Ecuador **, Mexico and Peru * (Fig 160). Biological notes. Host unknown. Comments. Acrotaphus mexicanus closely resembles A. fasciatus, A. latifasciatus and A. pseudomexicanus sp. n. mainly by having colour pattern of metasoma orange with last tergites black. It differs from A. fasciatus by slender ovipositor,>1.6× as long as hind tibia (ovipositor robust, A. fasciatus), it differs from A. latifasciatus mainly by having epicnemial carina present ventrally, extending laterally until the level of the lower corner of the pronotum (epicnemial carina present only ventrally, not extending until reaching level of the lower corner of the pronotum laterally, in A. latifasciatus), it differs from A. pseudomexicanus sp. n. mainly by having head in dorsal view with margin of gena flat behind eyes (gena concave in, A. pseudomexicanu s sp. n.)., Published as part of Pádua, Diego G., Sääksjärvi, Ilari E., Monteiro, Ricardo F. & Oliveira, Marcio L., 2020, Review of the New World genus Acrotaphus Townes, 1960 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae), with descriptions of fifteen new species, pp. 1-62 in Zootaxa 4719 (1) on pages 40-42, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4719.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3602788, {"references":["Townes, H. & Townes, M. (1960) Ichneumon-Flies of America North of Mexico: 2. Subfamilies Ephialtinae, Xoridinae, Acaenitinae. United State National Museum Bulletin, 216, 1 - 676. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 03629236.216.1 - 2"]}