Other name for that same species, meaning that three different names in three different genera were applied to the same species by the same author in the same paper! This case is not unlikely, due to Ashmead’s poor knowledge of the Microgastrinae (Mason 1981). In fact, the descriptions in his 1900 paper are not only very inconsistent (characters in the key do not correspond well to the descriptions, descriptions are not homogeneous, some body areas are named differently in the same paper, e.g., knees and femur) but they are also misleading, e.g., the original description of Urogaster aciculatus Cyclosporine custom synthesis mentions the propodeum with a large, round areola, when it actually has no areola at all. We studied the three descriptions in detail to see if they could correspond to the same species. The lack of uniformity and different terminology prevents a certain conclusion, but they are similar in many regards, differing in minor details such as coloration (which may be meaningless anyway, because of the very small number of specimens examined by the author). Because the holotype of Apanteles sanctivincenti is lost, this situation may never be resolved unambiguously. Thus for the sake of name stability, and pending future studies on the genus, we just transfer A. sanctivincenti to Rhygoplitis.Review of Apanteles sensu stricto (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae)…Table 1. Species considered as belonging to Apanteles by Smith et al. (2008) but transferred to other genera of Microgastrinae in the present paper. After the new assigned genus we provide the interim specific name whenever available (the format being “Genus Interim name”, e.g., Dolichogenidea Janzen90). The interim names allow for contemporary retrieval of full information of specimens in the Biotin-VAD-FMK biological activity online ACG database (http://janzen.sas.upenn.edu/caterpillars/database.lasso) as well as BOLD (www.barcodinglife. org). When those species are revised and published in their respective generic revisions, they will receive an appropriate formal scientific name. Species name in Smith et al. (2008) Apanteles Rodriguez02 Apanteles Rodriguez45 Apanteles Rodriguez90 Apanteles Rodriguez102 Apanteles Rodriguez118 Apanteles Rodriguez119 Apanteles Rodriguez133 Apanteles Rodriguez136 Apanteles Rodriguez137 Apanteles Rodriguez157 Apanteles Rodriguez164 Apanteles Rodriguez172 New generic and/or interim species name assigned here Parapanteles Rodriguez02 Parapanteles Whitfield45 Dolichogenidea Janzen90 Parapanteles Whitfield102 Glyptapanteles Whitfield175 Dolichogenidea Janzen119 Parapanteles Whitfield133 Parapanteles Whitfield302 Parapanteles Whitfield303 The name was applied to several specimens that might represent more than one species. The ones we could study are Dolichogenidea, the others are left as Apanteles Rodriguez157 and will be dealt with in future papers. Probably Dolichogenidea. Probably Dolichogenidea. We have only seen one specimen lacking legs, antenna and metasoma, which cannot be properly assigned to genus until more material is available.ACG species wrongly assigned to Apanteles in the past In a first, non-taxonomic analysis of the Microgastrinae fauna of ACG, Smith et al. (2008) included 136 interim, unnamed, species of Apanteles ?detailed in their “Datasets 1 and 2” of their “Supporting Information”. After reviewing those specimens, we feel that 12 of those species are better placed in other microgastrine genera and therefore transfer them here (Table 1). The rest are described below, togeth.Other name for that same species, meaning that three different names in three different genera were applied to the same species by the same author in the same paper! This case is not unlikely, due to Ashmead’s poor knowledge of the Microgastrinae (Mason 1981). In fact, the descriptions in his 1900 paper are not only very inconsistent (characters in the key do not correspond well to the descriptions, descriptions are not homogeneous, some body areas are named differently in the same paper, e.g., knees and femur) but they are also misleading, e.g., the original description of Urogaster aciculatus mentions the propodeum with a large, round areola, when it actually has no areola at all. We studied the three descriptions in detail to see if they could correspond to the same species. The lack of uniformity and different terminology prevents a certain conclusion, but they are similar in many regards, differing in minor details such as coloration (which may be meaningless anyway, because of the very small number of specimens examined by the author). Because the holotype of Apanteles sanctivincenti is lost, this situation may never be resolved unambiguously. Thus for the sake of name stability, and pending future studies on the genus, we just transfer A. sanctivincenti to Rhygoplitis.Review of Apanteles sensu stricto (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae)…Table 1. Species considered as belonging to Apanteles by Smith et al. (2008) but transferred to other genera of Microgastrinae in the present paper. After the new assigned genus we provide the interim specific name whenever available (the format being “Genus Interim name”, e.g., Dolichogenidea Janzen90). The interim names allow for contemporary retrieval of full information of specimens in the online ACG database (http://janzen.sas.upenn.edu/caterpillars/database.lasso) as well as BOLD (www.barcodinglife. org). When those species are revised and published in their respective generic revisions, they will receive an appropriate formal scientific name. Species name in Smith et al. (2008) Apanteles Rodriguez02 Apanteles Rodriguez45 Apanteles Rodriguez90 Apanteles Rodriguez102 Apanteles Rodriguez118 Apanteles Rodriguez119 Apanteles Rodriguez133 Apanteles Rodriguez136 Apanteles Rodriguez137 Apanteles Rodriguez157 Apanteles Rodriguez164 Apanteles Rodriguez172 New generic and/or interim species name assigned here Parapanteles Rodriguez02 Parapanteles Whitfield45 Dolichogenidea Janzen90 Parapanteles Whitfield102 Glyptapanteles Whitfield175 Dolichogenidea Janzen119 Parapanteles Whitfield133 Parapanteles Whitfield302 Parapanteles Whitfield303 The name was applied to several specimens that might represent more than one species. The ones we could study are Dolichogenidea, the others are left as Apanteles Rodriguez157 and will be dealt with in future papers. Probably Dolichogenidea. Probably Dolichogenidea. We have only seen one specimen lacking legs, antenna and metasoma, which cannot be properly assigned to genus until more material is available.ACG species wrongly assigned to Apanteles in the past In a first, non-taxonomic analysis of the Microgastrinae fauna of ACG, Smith et al. (2008) included 136 interim, unnamed, species of Apanteles ?detailed in their “Datasets 1 and 2” of their “Supporting Information”. After reviewing those specimens, we feel that 12 of those species are better placed in other microgastrine genera and therefore transfer them here (Table 1). The rest are described below, togeth.
