Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-wlt4x Total loading time: 0.695 Render date: 2021-05-15T10:25:16.487Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

The wasps, bees and ants (Insecta: Vespida=Hymenoptera) from the Insect Limestone (Late Eocene) of the Isle of Wight, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2014

Alexander V. Antropov
Affiliation:
Zoological Museum of Moscow Lomonosov State University. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya Str. 6. Moscow, 125009, Russia. Emails: antropov@zmmu.msu.ru; proctos@mail.ru
Sergey A. Belokobylskij
Affiliation:
Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia. Email: sb@zin.ru; doryctes@gmail.com Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, Warszawa 00-679, Poland
Stephen G. Compton
Affiliation:
Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: s.g.a.compton@leeds.ac.uk
Gennady M. Dlussky
Affiliation:
Biological Faculty of Moscow State University, Moscow 119992Russia. Email dlusskye@mail.ru; ksenperf@mail.ru
Andrey I. Khalaim
Affiliation:
Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia. Email: sb@zin.ru; doryctes@gmail.com
Victor A. Kolyada
Affiliation:
Zoological Museum of Moscow Lomonosov State University. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya Str. 6. Moscow, 125009, Russia. Emails: antropov@zmmu.msu.ru; proctos@mail.ru
Ksenia S. Perfilieva
Affiliation:
Biological Faculty of Moscow State University, Moscow 119992Russia. Email dlusskye@mail.ru; ksenperf@mail.ru
Alexandr P. Rasnitsyn
Affiliation:
Palaeontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 117997 Moscow, Russia. Email: alex.rasnitsyn@gmail.com Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK

Abstract

The types and undescribed material of the hymenopteran fossils of the Insect Bed of the Bembridge Marls from the Isle of Wight (UK) are critically revised and studied. A total of 1460 fossils are recorded and attributed to 20 families: Gasteruptiidae s.l. (1); Proctotrupidae (3); Diapriidae (24); Cynipidae (7); Figitidae (6); Pteromalidae (1); Agaonidae (3); Scelionidae (12); Platygastridae (2); Ichneumonidae (32); Braconidae (75); Bethylidae (3); Crabronidae (2); Sphecidae (1); Apidae (2); Scoliidae (1); Tiphiidae (2); Vespidae (4); and Formicidae (1220). Described as new are 51 species, 13 genera, two tribes and two subfamilies. Minimum number of species recorded (either as described species or representing higher taxa with no described species in the assemblage) is 118. The composition of the hymenopteran assemblage is most similar to that of Baltic amber and indicative of a well forested territory, as well as of a humid, equable (aseasonal but not very hot) climate, more typically equable than in the Baltic amber source area, judging from the absence of Aphidiinae and scarcity of aphids.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Society of Edinburgh 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

Deceased

References

Achterberg, C. van. 1977. A new Holarctic genus, Spathicopis gen. nov., belonging to the Euphorinae, Centiscini (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Entomologische Berichten, Amsterdam 37, 2731Google Scholar
Achterberg, C. van. 1979. A revision of the subfamily Zelinae auct. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 122, 241–79.Google Scholar
Achterberg, C. van. 1982. The fossil species of the subfamily Blacinae described by C.T. Brues (Hym.: Braconidae). Entomologische Berichten 42, 9196.Google Scholar
Achterberg, C. van. 1988. Revision of the subfamily Blacinae Foerster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden 249, 3324.Google Scholar
Achterberg, C. van. 1993. Illustrated key to the subfamilies of the Braconidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea). Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden 283, 3189.Google Scholar
Achterberg, C. van. 2001. The first known fossil Masoninae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) from Miocene Dominican amber. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden 75(21), 393–96.Google Scholar
Achterberg, C. van. 2002. Revision of the genus Canalicephalus Gibson and the recognition of the Acampsohelconinae (Hymenoptrera: Braconidae) as extant. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 76(20), 347–70.Google Scholar
Ahmed, S., Compton, S. G., Butlin, R. K. & Gilmartin, P. M. 2009. Wind borne insects mediate directional pollen transfer between desert fig trees 160 kilometers apart. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 20342–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antropov, A. V. 1992. Five new neotropical species of the genus Spilomena (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae Pemphredoninae), with additional comments on the previously described species. Russian Entomological Journal 1, 6773.Google Scholar
Antropov, A. V. 1993. Further supplements to the knowledge of the neotropical fauna of digger wasps of the genus Spilomena (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae Pemphredoninae). Russian Entomological Journal 1, 4157.Google Scholar
Antropov, A. V. 2000a. Digger Wasps (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae) in Burmese amber. The history, geology, age and fauna (mainly insects) of Burmese amber, Myanmar. Bulletin of The Natural History Museum, Geology Series 56, 5977.Google Scholar
Antropov, A. V. 2000b. A new digger wasp (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae, Pemphredoninae) from New Jersey amber. In Grimaldi, D. (ed.) Studies on fossils in amber, with particular reference to the Cretaceous of New Jersey, 339–43. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers. Viii+498 pp.Google Scholar
Archibald, S. B. & Farrell, B. D. 2003. Wheeler's dilemma. In Krzeminska, E. & Krzeminski, W. (eds) Proceedings of the Second Congress on Paleoentomology “Fossil Insects”, Kraków, Poland, 5–9 September 2001. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 46 (supplement), 17–23. 440 pp.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W. H. 1899. Classification of the entomophilous wasps, or the superfamily Sphegoidea. The Canadian Entomologist 31, 345–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashmead, W. H. 1900. Classification of the Ichneumon flies, or the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 23, 1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashmead, W. H. 1903. Provespa, a new genus in the Vespidae. Entomological News 14, 182.Google Scholar
Basibuyuk, H. H., Rasnitsyn, A. P., Achterberg, C. Van, Fitton, M. G. & Quicke, D. L. J. 1999. A new putatively primitive Cretaceous fossil braconid subfamily from New Jersey amber (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Zoologica Scripta 28 (1/2), 211–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belokobylskij, S. A. 1986. New braconid genus from the supertribe Exothecidii (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 65(4), 780–83. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Belokobylskij, S. A. 1995. Revision of the Palaearctic species of the genus Clinocentrus (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Journal of Natural History 29, 803–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belokobylskij, S. A., Iqbal, M. & Austin, A. D. 2004a. Systematics, distribution and diversity of the Australasian doryctine wasps (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Doryctinae). Records of the South Australian Museum, Monograph Series 8, 1150.Google Scholar
Belokobylskij, S. A., Zaldivar-Riveron, A. & Quick, D. L. J. 2004b. Phylogeny of the genera of the parasitic wasps subfamily Doryctinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) based on morphological evidence. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 142, 369404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betrem, J. G. 1933. Die Scoliiden der indoaustralischen und palearktischen Region aus dem staatlichen Museum für Tierkunde zur Dresden. Stettiner entomologische Zeitung 94(2), 236–63.Google Scholar
Bingham, C. T. 1903. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Hymenoptera 2. Ants and cuckoo-wasps. London. 506 pp.Google Scholar
Bohart, R. M. & Menke, A. S. 1976. Sphecid Wasps of the World. A generic revision. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. 1 colour plate, IX+695 pp.Google Scholar
Bolton, B. A. 1994. Identification Guide to the Ant Genera of the World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 222 pp.Google Scholar
Bolton, B. A. 1995. New General Catalogue of the Ants of the World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 504 pp.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 198 p.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1997. Agaonidae. In Gibson, G. A. P., Huber, J. T. & Woolley, J. B. (eds) Annotated Keys to the Genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera), 117–33. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: NRC Research Press. 794 pp.Google Scholar
Brischke, D. 1886. Die Hymenopteren des Bernsteins. Schriften der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Danzig 6(3), 278–79.Google Scholar
Brodie, P. B. 1875. Tertiary fossil ants in the Isle of Wight. Nature 52, 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brothers, D. J. & Finnamore, A.T. 1993. Chapter 8, Superfamily Vespoidea. In Goulet, H. & Huber, J.T. (eds). Hymenoptera of the world: An identification guide to families, 161278. Publication 1794/E. Canada Communication Group, Ottawa, Canada. 668 pp.Google Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1906. Fossil parasitic and phytophagous Hymenoptera from Florissant, Colorado. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 22, 491–98.Google Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1910. The parasitic Hymenoptera of the Tertiary of Florissant, Colorado. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 54(1), 4125.Google Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1922. Some parasitic Hymenoptera from New Zealand. Psyche 29, 216–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1923. Some new fossil parasitic Hymenoptera from Baltic amber. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 58, 327–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1933. The parasitic Hymenoptera of the Baltic amber. Bernstein Forschungen 3, 4178.Google Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1937. Superfamilies Ichneumonoidea, Serphoidea, and Chalcidoidea. In Carpenter, F. M., Folsom, J. W., Essig, E. O., Kinsey, A. C., Brues, C. T., Boesel, M. W. & Ewig, H. E. 1937. Insects and arachnids from Canadian amber. University of Toronto Studies. Geological Series 40, 2744.Google Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1939. New Oligocene Braconidae and Bethylidae from Baltic amber. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 32, 251–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budrys, E. R. 1993. Digger wasps of the subfamily Pemphredoninae (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae) from the Baltic and Taimyr amber. Acta Entomologica Lituanica 2, 3456.Google Scholar
Burnham, L. 1978. Survey of social insects in the fossil records. Psyche 89, 85133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, P. 1900. Hymenoptera orientalis, or contributions to the knowledge of the Hymenoptera of the Oriental zoological region. Part 9. The Hymenoptera of the Khasia Hills. Part II, Section 1. Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society 44(15), 1114.Google Scholar
Carpenter, F. M. 1930. The fossil ants of North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 70, 166.Google Scholar
Carpenter, F. M. 1992. Superclass Hexapoda. In Moore, R. C. & Kaesler, R. L. (eds) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part R, Arthropoda 4, Volume 3 and 4. Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas: The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas Press. XXII+655 pp.Google Scholar
Carpenter, F. M., Folsom, J. W., Essig, E. O., Kinsey, A. C., Brues, C. T., Boesel, M. W. & Ewig, H. E. 1937. Insects and arachnids from Canadian amber. University of Toronto Studies. Geological Series 40, 762.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. M. 2000. A vespid wasp from New Jersey Cretaceous amber. In Grimaldi, D. A. (ed.) Studies on fossils in amber, with particular reference to the Cretaceous of New Jersey, 333–37. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. M. & Grimaldi, D. A. 1997. Social wasps in amber. American Museum Novitates 3203, 17.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. M. & Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1990. Mesozoic Vespidae. Psyche 97, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1906. Fossil Hymenoptera from Florissant, Colorado. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 50, 3358.Google Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1907. Some fossil arthropods from Florissant, Colorado. Article XXIV. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 23, 605–16.Google Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1908. Descriptions and records of bees – XX. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 8 2, 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1909. Descriptions of Hymenoptera from Baltic Amber. Mitteilungen aus dem geologisch-palaeontologischen Institut und der Bernsteinsammlung der Universität Königsberg i. Pr. 3 229–33.Google Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1913. Some fossil insects from Florissant, Colorado. The Canadian Entomologist 45, 229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1915. British fossil insects. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 49, 469–99, plates 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1919. Some fossil parasitic Hymenoptera. American Journal of Science, Series 4 47, 376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1920a. Eocene insects from the Rocky Mountains. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 57, 233–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1920b. Fossil arthropods in the British Museum.1. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9 5, 273–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1921a. Fossil Arthopods in the British Museum. – V. Oligocene Hymenoptera from the Isle of Wight. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9 7, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1921b. Fossils Arthropods in the British Museum – VII. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9 8, 541–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1922. Two families of insects new to British Tertiary strata. The Canadian Entomologist 54, 3334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1927. Fossil insects from the Miocene of Colorado. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9 19, 161–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1941. Some tertiary insects (Hymenoptera) from Colorado. American Journal of Science 239, 354–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collinson, M. E. 1989. The fossil record of the Moraceae. In Crane, P. R. & Blackmore, S. (eds) The evolution, systematics and fossil history of the Hamamelidae. Vol. 2, “Higher Hamamelidae”, 319–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Compton, S. G., Ball, A. D., Collinson, M. E., Hayes, P., Rasnitsyn, A. P. & Ross, A. J. 2010. Ancient fig wasps indicate at least 34 Myr of stasis in their mutualism with fig trees. Biology Letters 6, 838–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A. 1858. Fauna del Regno di Napoli ossia Enumerazione di tutti gli Animali che abitano le diverse Regioni di questo Regno e le Acque che le bagnano e Descrizione de ‘nuovi o poco esattemente conosciuti con Figure ricevute de Originali viventi e dipinte al naturale. Imenotteri Aculeati. Sfecidei. Napoli: Gaetano Sautto. pp. 128, plates 1–III.Google Scholar
Dahlbom, A. G. 1835. Clavis novi Hymenopterorum systematis anatomia externa, metamorphosi moribusque horum animalium simul consideratis; adjecta synopsi larvarum ejusdem ordinis Scandinavicarum eruciformium. Lundae: Carolus F. Berling. i–v+40 pp, 1 plate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlbom, A. G. 1843. Hymenoptera Europaea praecipue borealia; formis typicis nonnullis Specierum Generumve Exoticorum aut Extraneorum propter nexum systematicus associatis; per Familias, Genera, Species et Varietates disposita atque descripta. Tomus: Sphex in sensu Linneano. Officina Lundbergiana, Lund, xliv Fasc. 1, 1172.Google Scholar
Dahlbom, A. G. 1845. Hymenoptera Europaea praecipue borealia; formis typicis nonnullis Specierum Generumve Exoticorum aut Extraneorum propter nexum systematicus associatis; per Familias, Genera, Species et Varietates disposita atque descripta. Tomus: Sphex in sensu Linneano. Officina Lundbergiana, Lund, xliv Fasc. 3, 353528, i–xliv, tables.Google Scholar
Dalla Torre, K. W. v. 1880. Unsere Hummel – (Bombus) Arten. Naturhistoriker 2, 4041.Google Scholar
Dalman, J. W. 1820. Försök till Uppställning af Insect-familjen Pteromalini, i synnerhet med afseen de på de i Sverige funne Arter. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps Academiens Nya Handlingar, Stockholm 41, 123–74, 177–82, tab VII–VIII.Google Scholar
Danforth, B. 1989. The evolution of hymenopteran wings: the importance of size. Journal of Zoology 218, 247–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1967. [Ants of the genus Formica.] Moscow: Nauka Press. 230 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1975. [Superfamily Formicoidea.] In Rasnitsyn, A. P. (ed.) [Hymenoptera Apocrita of the Mesozoic.] Transactions of Paleontological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR 147, 114–22. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1981a. [Miocene ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of the USSR.] In Vishnjakova, V. N., Dlussky, G. M. and Pritykina, L. N. (eds) [New fossil insects from the territory of the USSR,] 6483. Moscow: Nauka Press. 86 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1981b. [Desert ants.] Moscow: Nauka Press. 236 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1983. [A new family of Upper Cretaceous Hymenoptera: an “intermediate link” between the ants and scolioids.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 1983(3), 6578. [In Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 17, 63–76.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1987. [New Formicoidea from Upper Cretaceous.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 1987(1), 131–35. [in Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 21, 146–50.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1988. [Ants from (Paleocene?) Sakhalin amber.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 1988(1), 5061. [In Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 22, 50–60.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1996. [Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Burmese Amber.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 1996(3), 8389. [In Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 30, 449–54.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1999a. [The first find of Formicoidea (Hymenoptera) in the Lower Cretaceous of the North Hemisphere.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 1999(3), 6266. [in Russian; English translation Paleontological Journal 33, 274–77.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 1999b. [New ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Canadian Amber.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 1999(3), 7376. [in Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 33, 409–12.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. 2002. [Ants of the genus Dolichoderus Lund (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Baltic and Rovno ambers.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 2002(1), 5468. [In Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 36, 50–63.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M., Brothers, D. & Rasnitsyn, A. P. 2004. The first Late Cretaceous ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from southern Africa, with comments on the origin of the Myrmicinae. Insect Systematics and Evolution 35, 113.Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M., Wappler, T. & Wedmann, S. 2008. New middle Eocene formicid species from Germany and the evolution of weaver ants. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 53, 615–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. & Perfilieva, K. S. 2003. [Paleogene ants of the genus Archimyrmex Cockerell, 1923 (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Myrmeciinae).] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 2003(1), 4049. [In Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 37, 39–47.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. & Perkovsky, E. E. 2002. [Ants of Rovno amber.] Vestnik zoologii 36(5), 320. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Dlussky, G. M. & Rasnitsyn, A. P. 2002. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Green River Formation and some other Middle Eocene deposits of North America. Russian Entomological Journal 11, 411–36.Google Scholar
Donisthorpe, H. St. J. K. 1915. British Ants, their Life history and Classification. Plymouth: Brenden & Son, Ltd. xv+379 pp.Google Scholar
Donisthorpe, H. St. J. K. 1920. British Oligocene ants. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 9 6, 8194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donisthorpe, H. St. J. K. 1947 [1946]. Ants from New Guinea, including new species and a new genus. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 11(13), 577–95.Google Scholar
Emery, C. 1891. Le formishe dell'Ambra Siciliana nel Museo Mineralogico dell'Universita di Bologna. Memoire della Reale Accademia delle Scienza dell'Instituto di Bologna, Ser. 5 1, 567–94.Google Scholar
Emery, C. 1893. Voyage de M. E. Simon à l'île de Ceylan (janvier-février 1892). Formicides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 62, 239–58.Google Scholar
Emery, C. 1905. Deux fourmis de l'Ambre de la Baltique. Bulletin de la Societé Entomologique de France 77, 187–89.Google Scholar
Emery, C 1913 [1912]. Hymenoptera. Fam. Formicidae. Subfam. Dolichoderinae. Genera Insectorum 137, 150.Google Scholar
Enderlein, G., 1920. Zur Kenntnis ausserreuropäischer Braconiden. Archiv für Naturgeschihte 84(11), 51224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, M. S. 1998. A New Species of the Baltic Amber Bee Genus Electrapis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 7(1), 94101.Google Scholar
Engel, M. S. 2001. A monograph of the Baltic amber bees and evolution of the Apoidea (Hymenoptera). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 259, 192 pp.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, M. S. 2006. A giant honey bee from the middle Miocene of Japan (Hymenoptera, Apidae). American Museum Novitates 3504, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, M. S. & Bennett, D. J. 2008. Anoblepsis, a new, bizarre braconid wasp genus in Dominican Amber (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 81(4), 368–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, M. S. & Grimaldi, D. 2005. Primitive new ants in Cretaceous amber from Myanmar, New Jersey and Canada (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). American Museum Novitates 3485, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskov, K. Y. 2002. Geographical history of insects. In Rasnitsyn, A. P. & Quicke, D. L. J. (eds) History of Insects, 427–35. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 517 pp.Google Scholar
Evanoff, E., Mcintosh, W. C. & Murphey, P. C. 2001. Stratigraphic summary and 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of the Florissant Formation, Colorado. Proceedings of the Denver Museum of Natural Sciences, Ser. 4 1, 116.Google Scholar
Evans, H. E. 1966. The comparative ethology and evolution of the sand wasps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. xviii+526 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, H. E. 1969. Three new Cretaceous aculeate wasps (Hymenoptera). Psyche 76, 251–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae, sistens Insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus, 132. Flensburgi et Lipsiae [=Flensburg and Leipzig]: Kortii. 832 pp.Google Scholar
Fabricius, J. C. 1790. Nova Insectorum genera. Skrivter af Naturhistorie Selskabet, Kjøbnhavn 1, 213–28.Google Scholar
Fabricius, J. C. 1804. Systema Piezatorum. Brunsvigae: Reinchard. 439 pp.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1856. Hymenopteologische Studien. II Heft. Chalcidiae und Proctotrupii. Aachen: Meer. 152 pp.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1862. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconen. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereines der Preussischen Rheinland und Westphalens 19, 225–88.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1869. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Ichneumonen. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens 25(for 1868), 135221.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1891. Die Insekten des “Plattigen Steinmergels” von Brunstatt. Abhandlungen zur geologischen Spezialkarte von Elsass-Lothringen 3, 333594.Google Scholar
Forel, A. 1878. Études myrmécologiques en 1878 (première partie) avec l'anatomie du gésier des fourmis. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 15, 337–92.Google Scholar
Girault, J. 1869. Oberservations hyménoptèrologique. III. Des galles d'un Lépidoptère sur le Limoniastrum guyonianum, et des parasites qui les habitant. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (4) 9, 469–88.Google Scholar
Gokhman, V. E. 1992. [On the origin of endoparasitism in the subfamily Ichneumoninae (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae).] Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii 53, 600–08. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Gravenhorst, J. L. C. 1834. Bericht über die Beschästigungen der entomologischen Section im Jahre 1833. Übersicht der Arbait und Beränderungen der schlesischen Gesellschaft für vaterländische Kultur 1833, 7680.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D., Agosti, D. & Carpenter, J. M. 1997. New and rediscovered primitive ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, and their phylogenetic relationships. American Museum Novitates 3208, 143.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D. & Agosti, D. 2000. A formicine in New Jersey Cretaceous amber (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), and early evolution of the ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, 13678–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guérin, M. 1838. Voyage autour de Monde sur la Coquille. Zoologie, II, 1, Divis. 1.Google Scholar
Haliday, A. H. 1833. An essay on the classification of the parasitic Hymenoptera of Britain, which correspond with the Ichneumones minuti of Linnaeus. Entomological Magazine 1, 259–76.Google Scholar
Haliday, A. H. 1835. Essay on parasitic Hymenoptera. Entomological Magazine 3, 2045.Google Scholar
Haliday, A. H. 1836. Essay on parasitic Hymenoptera. Entomological Magazine 4, 3859.Google Scholar
Haliday, A. H. 1839. Hymenopterorum synopsis ad methodum clm. Fallenii utplurimum accomodata. Addendum to Hymenoptera Brittanica: Alysia. London: Hippolytus Baillière. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Hartig, T. 1840: Naturgeschichte der Gallwespen. Zeitschrift für die Entomologie 2, 176209.Google Scholar
Hedicke, H. 1939. Aulacidae. In Hedicke, H. (ed.) Hymenopterorum Catalogus 10, 127. Junk W. (publ.).Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1849. Die Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Vol. 2. Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Alderflügen, Schmetterlinge, und Fliegen. Leipzig: Engelmann. 264 pp.Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1849. 1867. Fossile Hymenopteren aus Oeningen und Radoboj. Neue Denkschriften der allgemeine schweizarische Gesellschaft fürd des gesammten Naturwissenschaften 22, 542.Google Scholar
HeydenC., von. C., von. 1858. Fossile Insekten aus der Braunkohle von Sieblos. Palaeontographica 5, 115–20.Google Scholar
Hincks, W. D. 1944. Notes on the nomenclature of some British parasitic Hymenoptera. Proceeding of the Royal Entomological Society of London (B) 13, 3039.Google Scholar
Hong, Y. 1974. Stratigraphy and paleontology of Fushun coal-field, Liaoning Province. II. Description of new fossil insects and phyllopods. Ti Chih Hsueh Pao 1974, 124–48.Google Scholar
Hong, Y. 1984. [Fossil insects in the diatoms of Shanwang.] Bulletin of the Tjanjin Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources 8, 112 [In Chinese.]Google Scholar
Hong, Y. 2001. [Amber insects of China.] Beijing: Beijing Scientific and Technological Publishing House. 653 pp, 48 pls. [In Chinese, with English summary.]Google Scholar
Hong, Y. 2002. [Atlas of amber insects of China.] Henan: Henan Scientific and Technological Publishing House. 394 pp. [In Chinese, with English summary.]Google Scholar
Hooker, J. J., Grimes, S. T., Mattey, D. P., Collinson, M. E. & Sheldon, N. D. 2009. Refined correlation of the UK Late Eocene–Early Oligocene Solent Group and timing of its climate history. In Koeberl, C. & Montanari, A. (eds) The Late Eocene Earth – Greenhouse, Icehouse, and Impacts. Geological Society of America Special Paper 452, 179–95.Google Scholar
Hope, F. W. 1837. Observations on succinic insects. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 2, 4657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, T. 1980. A revision of the Western Palaearctic species of the genus Meteorus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) 41(1), 158.Google Scholar
Huddleston, T. 1984. The Palaearctic species of Ascogaster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) 49(5), 341–92.Google Scholar
Humala, A. E. 2003. [Ichneumon-flies of the fauna of Russia and surrounding countries. Subfamilies Microleptinae and Oxytorinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae).] Moscow: Russian Academy of Science. 175 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Jarzembowski, E. A. 1976. Report of Easter field meeting: the lower tertiaries of the Isle of Wight, 27–31.III.1975. Tertiary Research 1, 1116.Google Scholar
Jarzembowski, E. A. 1980. Fossil insects from the Bembridge Marls, Palaeogene of the Isle of Wight, Southern England. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology Series 33, 237–93.Google Scholar
Jennings, J. T. & Austin, A. D. 2000. Higher level phylogeny of Aulacidae and Gasteruptiidae (Hymenoptera). In Austin, A. D. & Dowton, M. (eds) The Hymenoptera: Evolution, Biodiversity and Biological Control, 155164. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing. 480 pp.Google Scholar
Jurine, L. 1801. In Panzer, G. W. F. Nachricht von einem neuen entomologischen Werke des Hrn. Prof. Jurine in Geneva. Intelligentzblatt der Litteratur-Zeitung (Erlangen), 161–65.Google Scholar
Jurine, L. 1808. Adnotatio. In Spinola, M. Insectorum Liguriae species novae aut rariores quas in agro Ligustico nuper detexit, descripsit et iconibus illustravit Maximilianus Spinola, adjecto catalogo specierum auctoribus jam enumeratarum, quae in eadem regione passim occurrunt II, 254–56. Genuae: Yves Gravier. ii+262 pp.Google Scholar
Kannowski, P. B. 1963. The flight activities of formicine ants. Symposia Genetica et Biologica Italica 12, 74102.Google Scholar
Kasparyan, D.R. (ed.) 1981. [A guide to the insects of the European part of the USSR. Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae.] Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, Leningrad 3(3). 688 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Kasparyan, D. R. 1988a. [New taxa of fam. Paxylommatidae (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonoidea) from the Baltic amber.] Trudy Vsesoyuznogo Entomologicheskogo Obshchestva 70, 125–31. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Kasparyan, D. R. 1988b. [A new subfamily and two new genera of Ichneumonids (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) from Baltic amber.] Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, Leningrad 175, 3843. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Kasparyan, D. R. 1994. [Review of Ichneumon flies of the Townesitinae subfam nov. (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonoidea) from the Baltic ambers.] Paleontologicheskiy zhurnal 4, 8696. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Kasparyan, D. R. 2001. A new genus and species of the subfamily Ghilarovitinae from Baltic amber (Hymenoptera: Paxylommatidae). Zoosystematica Rossica 10(1), 9799.Google Scholar
Kasparyan, D. R. & Humala, A. E. 1995. [A new genus and three new species of Ichneumonids of the subfamily Oxytorinae (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) from Baltic amber.] Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye 74(2), 416–19. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Khalaim, A. I. 2008. Fossil ichneumon wasps (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) from Biamo (Russia), Oligocene. Alavesia 2, 101–12.Google Scholar
Kirby, W. F. 1798. Ammophila, a new genus of insects in the class Hymenoptera, including the Sphex sabulosa of Linnaeus. Transactions of the Linnean Society 4, 195212, 1 Plate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, W. F 1837. The insects. In Richardson, J. (ed.) Fauna boreali-Americana, or the Zoology of the Northern Parts of British America, containing descriptions of the objects of natural history collected on the late northern land expedition, under command of Capitan Sir John Franklin, 39325. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Klug, F. 1801. Absonderung einiger Raupentödter und Vereiningung derselben zu einer neuen Gattung Sceliphron. Neue Schriften der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 3, 555–66.Google Scholar
Kohl, F. F. 1889. Neue Gattungen aus der Hymenopteren-Familie der Sphegiden. Annalen des k.k. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums 4, 188–95, Plate VIII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, F. F. 1897. Die Gattungen der Sphegiden. Annalen des k.k. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums 11, 233516, Plates V–XI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlov, M. A. 1970. Supergeneric groups of the Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera). Entomological Review 49, 115–27.Google Scholar
Kriechbaumer, J. 1894. Hymenoptera Ichneumonoidea a medico nautico Dr. Joh. Brauns in itinere ad oras Africae occidintalis lecta. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 39, 4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krombein, K. V. 1959. A new genus and species of Psenini from the southwestern deserts (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae). Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 54, 1821.Google Scholar
Laicharting, J. N. von. 1781 Verzeichniss und Beschreibung der Tyroler Insecten 1. Zürich: Fuessley. xii+248 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latreille, P. A. 1796 Précis des Caractères génériques des Insectes, disposes dans un ordre naturel. Bourdeaux: Brive. 210 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latreille, P. A 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière des Crustacées et des Insectes. T. 3. Paris: Imprimerie F. Dufart. 467 pp.Google Scholar
Latreille, P. A 1804. Tableau méthodique des insectes. Classe huitième. Insectes, Insecta. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle 24, 129200.Google Scholar
Latreille, P. A. 1805. Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des Crustacés et des Insectes. Ouvrage faisant suite aux Oeuvres de Leclercq de Buffon, et partie du Cours complet d'Histoire naturelle rédigé par C.S. Sonnini, membre de plusieurs Sociétés savantes 13. Paris: Imprimerie F. Dufart. 432 pp.Google Scholar
Latreille, P. A. 1809. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita, iconibus exemplisque plurimis explicata 4. Parisiis et Argentorati [=Paris and Strasbourg]: Amand Koenig. 399 pp.Google Scholar
Latreille, P. A 1817. Les Crustacés, les Arachnides et les insectes. In Cuvier, C. (ed.) Le Règne Animal, distribué d'apres son organisation, pour servir de base a l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a l'anatmoie comparée 3. Paris: Deterville. 29+653ppGoogle Scholar
Latreille, P. A 1829. Des Ichneumons (Ichneumon) de Linnaeus. In Cuvier, M. L. B. Le Règne Animal V, Ed. 2a, 282–90. Paris. 556 pp.Google Scholar
Leach, W. E. 1815. Entomology. In Brewster, D. Edinburgh Encyclopaedia 9, pt. 1, 57172.Google Scholar
Lepeletier De Saint Fargeau, A. L. M. 1832. Mémoire sur le genre Gorytes Latr. Arpactus. Annales de la Société Entomologiques de France 1, 5279.Google Scholar
Lepeletier De Saint Fargeau, A. L. M. 1836 [1835]. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hyménoptères. Tome I. Paris: Roret. 547 pp.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. E., Heikes, P. M. & Lewis, K. L. 1990. Entomofauna from the Brick Yard site (Miocene) near Spokane, Washington. Occasional Papers in Paleobiology St. Cloud State University 4(11), 116.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae Per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, Cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis 1. Editio Decima, Reformata. Holmiae: Laurentii Salvii. [4], [1–5], 6, 823, [1] pp.Google Scholar
Lund, A. W. 1831. Lettre sur les habitudes de quelques fourmis du Brésil, adressée à M. Audouin. Annales Des Sciences Naturelles 23, 113–38.Google Scholar
Machado, C. A., Jousselin, E., Kjellberg, F., Compton, S. G. & Herre, E.A. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships, historical biogeography and character evolution of fig-pollinating wasps. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B 268, 685–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mai, D. H. 1995. Tertiare Vegetationgeschchte Eurropas. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag. 692 pp.Google Scholar
Manning, F. J. 1961. A new fossil bee from Baltic amber. XI Internationaler Kongress für Entomologie, Verhandlungen, Wien 1, 306–08.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. A. 1898. Les Braconides. In Andre, E. (ed.) Species des Hyménoptères d'Europe et d'Algerie 5bis, 145288. Cote-d'Or: Beaune. 39, 635 pp.Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1961. Proctotrupidae. Key to the genera of the world (Hymenoptera, Proctotrupoidea). Exploration du Parc National de l'Upemba Mission G.F. de Witte (1946–1949), Brussels 60(4), 3745.Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1969. The geographic distribution of recent and fossil Ambositrinae (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea: Diapriidae). Tagungsberichte der Deutsche Akademie der Landwirtschaftwissenschaften zu Berlin 80, 105–09.Google Scholar
Mason, W. R. M. 1981. The polyphyletic nature of Apanteles Foerster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae): a phylogeny and reclassification of Microgastrinae. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 115, 1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, W. R. M. 1983. A new South African subfamily related to Cardiochilinar (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Contribution of the American Entomological Institute 20, 4962.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 1853. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Ameisen. Verhandllungen der kaiserlich-kongiglichen zoologish-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 3, 101–14.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 1861. Die europäischen Formiciden. Nach der analytischen Methode bearbeitet. Wien: C. Gerolds Sohn. 80 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, G. 1862. Myrmecologische Studien. Verhandllungen der kaiserlich-kongiglichen zoologish-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 12, 649776.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 1867. Vorläufige Studien über die Radoboj-Formiciden, in der Sammlung der geologischen Reichsanstalt. Jahrbuch der geologischen Reichsanatalt, Wien 17, 4762.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 1868. Die Ameisen des Baltischen Bernstein. Beiträge zur Naturkunde Preussens physikalische-ökonomischen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg 1, 1102.Google Scholar
Menier, J.-J., Nel, A., Waller, A. & Plo?g, G. de. 2004. A new fossil ichneumon wasp of Paris Basin (France), with a checklist of fossil Ichneumonoidea s.l. (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Metopiinae). Geologica Acta 2(1), 8394.Google Scholar
Menke, A. S. 1962. A new genus of digger wasps from South America (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 75, 303–06.Google Scholar
Menke, A. S. 1989. Arpactophilus reassessed, with three bizarre new species from New Guinea (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae: Pemphredoninae). Invertebrate Taxonomy 2, 737–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, A. S. and Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1987. Affinities of the fossil wasp, Hoplisidea kohliana Cockerell (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae: Sphecinae). Psyche 94(1–2), 3538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, M. F. 1915. Über einige fossil Insekten aus den Braunkohlenschichten (Aquitanien) von Rott im Siebengebirge. 3 Teil. Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft 67(4), 205–17.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. W. 2003. The Fossils of Florissant. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 285 pp.Google Scholar
Morawitz, A. 1866. Einige Bemerkungen über die Crabro-artigen Hymenopteren. Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 9, 243–73.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W. 1960. A fossil braconid wasp of the genus Ecphylus (Hymenoptera). Journal of Paleontology 34, 495–96.Google Scholar
Nees Von Esenbeck, C. G. 1812. Ichneumonides adsciti, in genera et families divisi. Der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin Magazin für die neuesten Entdeckungen in der gesamten Naturkunde 5, 337.Google Scholar
Nees Von Esenbeck, C. G. 1816. Ichneumonides adsciti, in genera et families divisi. Der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin Magazin für die neuesten Entdeckungen in der gesamten Naturkunde 7(4), 243–77.Google Scholar
Nees Von Esenbeck, C. G. 1818. Appendix ad J. I. Gravenhorst conspectun generum et familiarum Ichneumonidum, genera et familias Ichneumonidum adscitorum exhibens. Nova Acta Physico-medica Academiae Caesarea Leopoldino-Carolinae naturae curiosorum 9, 299310.Google Scholar
Nefdt, R. J. C. & Compton, S. G. 1996. Regulation of seed and pollinator production in the fig-fig wasp mutualism. Journal of Animimal Ecology 65, 170–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nel, A., Waller, A. & Plöeg, G. de. 2004. An aulacid wasp in the lowermost Eocene amber from the Paris Basin (Hymenoptera, Evaniidae). Geologica Acta 2, 6774.Google Scholar
Nemkov, P. G. 1988. Review of the Holarctic species of the genus Tracheliodes A. Morawitz. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Unionis Sovieticae 70, 116–24.Google Scholar
Nixon, G. E. J. 1965. A reclassification of the tribe Microgasterini (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History (Entomology) 21, 134.Google Scholar
Noort, S. van & Compton, S. G. 1996. Convergent adaptations of fig wasps to the ostiolar morphology of their host figs. Journal of Biogeography 23, 415–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega-Blanko, J., Bennett, D. J., Delclòs, X. & Engel, M. S. 2009 A primitive aphidiine wasp in Albian amber from Spain and a Northern Hemisphere origin for the subfamily (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 82(4), 273–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papp, J. 1984. Contribution to the braconid fauna of Hungary. V. Doryctinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica 45(1), 173–85.Google Scholar
Park, J. S. & Achterberg, C. van 1994. A new genus of the subfamily Ecnomiinae van Achterberg (Braconidae) from Korea. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden 68, 4954.Google Scholar
Pate, V. S. L. 1936. Studies in the Nyssoninae wasps (Gorytini: Sphecidae: Hymenoptera). I. The species of Psammaletes, a new subgenus of Hoplisoides. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 62, 4956.Google Scholar
Peñalver, E., Engel, M. S. & Grimaldi, D. A. 2006. Fig wasps in Dominican Amber (Hymenoptera:Agaonidae). American Museum Novitates 3541, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfilieva, K. S. 2002. [Wing venation in army ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) and its importance for phylogenic analysis.] Zoologicheskiy Zhurnal 81, 1239–50 [In Russian; English translation: Entomological Review 82, 1065–76.]Google Scholar
Perfilieva, K. S 2005. [Analysis of interspecies and sexual differences of quantitative wing characters of several ant species.] Ants and Forest Protection. Materials of XII All-Russian Myrmecological Symposium, Novosibirsk, 270–74. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Perkovsky, E. E. 2006. [Occurrence of ant (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) and aphid (Homoptera, Aphidinea) syninclusions in Saxonian and Rovno ambers.] Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 2006(2), 7274. [In Russian; English translation: Paleontological Journal 40, 190–92.]Google Scholar
Perrichot, V., Néraudeau, D., Nel, A. & Ploëg, G. de. 2007. A reassessment of the Cretaceous amber deposits from France and their palaeontological significance. African Invertebrates 48(1), 213–27.Google Scholar
Perrichot, V., Nel, A. & Quicke, D. L. J. 2009. New braconid wasps from French Cretaceous amber (Hymenoptera, Braconidae): synonymization with Eoichneumonidae and implications for the phylogeny of Incheumonoidea. Zoologica Scripta 38, 7988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piton, L. E. 1840. Paléontologie du gisement Eocéne de Menat (Puy-de-Dóme) (flore et faune). Paris: Paul Lechevalier. 303 pp.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. Jr. 2005. Fossil Trigonalidae and Vespidae (Hymenoptera) in Baltic amber. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 107(1), 5563.Google Scholar
Popov, V. 1932. Two new fossil ants from Caucasus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Travaux de l'Institute Paleozoologique 2, 1721.Google Scholar
Quicke, D. L. J. 1987. The Old World genera of braconine wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Journal of Natural History 21, 43157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quicke, D. L. J. & Achterberg, C. van. 1990. Phylogeny of the subfamilies of the family Braconidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea). Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden 258, 195.Google Scholar
Radoszkowski, O. 1876. Matériaux pour servir à une faune hyménoptérologique de la Russie. (Suite). Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae 12, 82110.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1975. [Hymenoptera Apocrita of Mesozoic.] Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta AN SSSR [Trans. Paleontol. Inst. Acad. Sci. USSR] 147. Moscow: Nauka Press. 134 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1977. [A new subfamily of scoliid wasps (Hymenoptera).] Zoolgicheskiy Zhurnal 56, 522–29. [In Russian, with English summary.]Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1980. [The origin and evolution of the hymenopteran insects.] Proceedings of Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences of USSR 174. 192 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1983. Ichneumonoidea (Hymenoptera) from the Lower Cretaceous of Mongolia. Contribution of the American Entomological Institute 20, 259–65.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1993. Archaeoscoliinae, an extinct subfamily of scoliid wasps (Insecta: Vespida=Hymenoptera: Scoliidae). Journal of Hymenopera Research 2(1), 8596.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 2013. Vectevania vetula Cockerell, 1922 from the uppermost Eocene of Bembridge Marls, England, and the system of the family Gasteruptiidae s.l. [Vespida (=Hymenoptera), Evanioidea]. Proceedings of the Russian Entomological Society 84(2), 98106.Google Scholar
Rasplus, J-Y, Kerdelhué, C., Le Clainche, I. & Mondor, G. 1998. Molecular phylogeny of fig wasps. Agaonidae are not monophyletic. C. R. Académie des Sciences de Paris, Sciences de la vie 321, 517–27.Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1848. Die Forstinsekten oder Abbildung und Beschreibung der in den Wäldern Preussens und der Nachbarstaaten als schädlich oder nützlich bekannt gewordenen Insecten; in systematischer Folge und mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Vertilgung der schädlichsten 2. Berlin: Nicolai. 238 pp.Google Scholar
Robertson, C. 1903. Synopsis of Megachilidae and Bombinae. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 29, 163–78.Google Scholar
Roger, J. 1861. Die Ponera-artigen Ameisen. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 5, 154.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. & Marcus, L. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8(4), 129–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rønsted, N., Weiblen, G. D., Cook, J. M., Salamin, N, Machado, C. A. & Savolainen, V. 2005. 60 million years of co-divergence in the fig wasp symbiosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 272, 2593–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Rust, J. 1999. Giant ants from the Paleogene of Denmark with a discussion of the fossil history and early evolution of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zoological Journal of Linnean Society 125, 331–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruthe, J. F. 1854. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Braconiden (Dimeris, Araphis, Trachyusa, Rhaconotus, Alysia). Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung 15, 343–55.Google Scholar
Ruthe, J. F. 1862. Deutsche Braconiden (Meteorus). Berliner Entomologische Zeitung 6, 158.Google Scholar
Ruzsky, M. 1912. Mirmekologicheskiya zametki [Myrmecological notices.] Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskago Veterinarago Instituta 29, 629–36.Google Scholar
Santschi, F. 1938. Notes sur quelques Ponera Latr. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 43, 7880.Google Scholar
Saussure, H. de & Sichel, J. 1864. Catalogue des espèces de l'ancien genre Scolia, contenant les diagnoses, les descriptions et la synonymie des espèces, avec des remarques explicatives et critiques. Genève et Paris: V. Mason. 358 pp.Google Scholar
Scopoli, J. A. 1763. Entomologia Carniolica exhibens Insecta Carnioliae indigena et distributa in ordines, genera, species, varietates. Methodo Linnaeano. Vindobonae: Typis Ioannis Thomae Trattner. [136], 420, [4] pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scudder, S. H. 1878. The fossil insects of the Green River shales. Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories 4, 747–76.Google Scholar
Scudder, S. H. 1890. The Tertiary insects of North America. Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories 13, 1734.Google Scholar
Sharkey, M. J. & Wharton, R. A. 1985. Redefinition of Megagathis Kriechbaumer, and reassignment of new world species to Zacremnops new genus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Agathidinae). The Canadian Entomologist 117, 599603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, S. R. 1985. A phylogenetic study of the subfamilies Meteorinae and Euphorinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Entomography 3, 277370.Google Scholar
Shenefelt, R. D. 1975. Braconidae 8. Exothecinae. Rogadinae. In Vecht, J. van der & Shenefelt, R. D. (eds) Hymenopterum Catalogus 12, 1115–262.Google Scholar
Shuckard, W. E. 1837. Essay on the indigenous fossorial Hymenoptera; comprising a description of all the British species of burrowing sand wasps contained in the metropolitan collections; with their habits as far as they have been observed. London: Richter and Co. XII pp., one Plate, 252+[2] pp., pls. 1–4, [4].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuckard, W. E. 1838. Descriptions of new exotic aculeate Hymenoptera. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 2, 6882, Plate VIII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skorikov, A. S. 1914. Les formes nouvelles des bourdons (Hymenoptera, Bombidae). VI. Russkoye Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye 14, 119–29.Google Scholar
Skorikov, A. S. 1922. [Palaearctic bumble bees. Part I. General biology (including zoogeography).] Izvestiya Severnoj oblastnoj stantsyi zashchity rastenij ot vreditelej 4(1), 1160. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Smith, F. 1857. Catalogue of the hymenopterous insects collected at Sarawak, Borneo; Mount Ophir, Malacca; and at Singapore, by Wallace, A. R.. [part]. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society. Zoology 2, 4288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. 1858. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part VI. Formicidae. London: British Museum. 216 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, F. 1860. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects collected by Mr. A. R. Wallace in the islands of Bachian, Kaisaa, Amboyna, Gilolo and at Dory in New Guinea. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society. Zoology 5, 93143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinola, M. 1808. Insectorum Liguriae species novae aut rariores, quae in agro ligustico nuper detexit, descripsit, et iconibus illustratavit 2(2–4). Genuae: Gravier. v+261 pp.Google Scholar
Spinola, M. 1853. Compte rendue des hyménoptères inédits provenants des voyage entomologique de Mr Ghiliani dans le Parà en 1846. Memoire della Reale Accademia della Scienze di Torino 13(2), 1994.Google Scholar
Stary, P. 1973. A revision of fossil Aphidiidae (Hym.). Annotationes Zoologicae et Botaticae Bratislava 87, 122.Google Scholar
Statz, G. 1936. Ueber alte und neue fossile Hymenopterenfunde aus den tertiaren Ablagerungen von Rott am Siebengebirge. Decheniana 93, 256312.Google Scholar
Statz, G. 1938. Neue Funde parasitischer Hymenopteren aus dem Tertiar von Rott am Siebengebirge. Decheniana 98, 71144.Google Scholar
Swederus, N. S. 1795. Beskrifning på et nytt genus Pteromalus ibland Insecterna, haerande til Hymenoptera, uti herr arch. och ridd. v. Linnés Systema Naturae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 16, 201–05.Google Scholar
Szepligeti, G. V. 1900. Braconiden aus Neu-Guinea in der Ungarischen National-Museums. Természetrajzi Füzetek 23, 4965.Google Scholar
Szepligeti, G. V. 1902. Tropische Cenocoelioniden und Braconiden aus der Sammlung des Ungarischen National-Museums. Természetrajzi Füzetek 25, 3984.Google Scholar
Szepligeti, G. V. 1908. Braconiden aus der Sammlung des ungarischen National Museums. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 6, 297427.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. W. 1964. Taxonomy and parataxonomy of some fossil ants (Hymenoptera-Formicidae). Psyche 71, 134–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telenga, N. A. 1952. Proiskhozhdenie paraziizma u nasekomykh-naezdnikov i formirovanie ikh fauny v SSSR [Parasitism origin in the parasitic Hymenoptera and formation of their fauna in USSR]. Kiev: Academy of Sciences Ukraine SSR Press. 140 pp.Google Scholar
Théobald, N. 1937. Les insectes fossiles des terrain oligocene de France. Bulletin Mensuelle de la Société Scientifique de Nancy (N.S.) 2bis, 1473.Google Scholar
Thomson, C. G. 1892. XLIV. Bidrag till Braconidernas kännedom. Opuscula entomológica 16, 1659–751.Google Scholar
Thomson, C. G. 1895. LII. Bidrag till Braconidernas kännedom. Opuscula entomologica 20, 2141–339.Google Scholar
Thunberg, C. P. 1822. Ichneumonidea, insecta Hymenoptera, illustrate. Mémoires de l'Academie imperiale des Sciences de St.-Petersbourg 8, 249–81.Google Scholar
Timon-David, J. 1944. Insectes fossiles de l´Oligocene inferieur des Camoins (Bassin de Marseille). II. Hymenopteres. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 49, 4045.Google Scholar
Tobias, V. I. 1965. [Generic grouping and evolution of parasitic Hymenoptera of the subfamily Euphorinae (Hymenoptera, Braconidae).] I. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 44, 841–65. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Tobias, V. I. 1966. [Generic grouping and evolution of parasitic Hymenoptera of the subfamily Euphorinae (Hymenoptera, Braconidae).] II. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 45, 612–33. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Tobias, V. I. 1982. [On the braconid species described by W. Hellen in the subgenus Taphaeus Wesmael (Hymenoptera, Braconidae).] Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 61(3), 614–19. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Tobias, V. I. 1987. [New taxa of braconids (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) from Baltic amber.] Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 66(2), 845–59. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Tobias, V. I. 1988. [The family Paxylommatidae (Hymenoptera) in the fauna of the USSR.] Trudy Vsesoyuznogo Entomologicheskogo Obshchestva 70, 131–43. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Tobias, V. I. 2000. [Subfamily Cheloninae.] In Lehr, P. A. (ed.). Key to insects of the Russian Far East. Volume 4. Neuropteroidea, Mecoptera, Hymenoptera. Part 4, 426571. Vladivostok: Dal'nauka. 649 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Tolkanitz, V. I., Narolsky, N. B. & Perkovsky, E. E. 2005. [A new species of parasitic wasp of the genus Pherhombus (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pherhombinae) from Rovno amber.] Paleontologicheskiy zhurnal 5, 5052. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Townes, H. K. 1969. The genera of Ichneumonidae, Part 1. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 11. 300 pp.Google Scholar
Townes, H. K. 1970a. The genera of Ichneumonidae, Part 2. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 12 (for 1969). 537 pp.Google Scholar
Townes, H. K. 1970b. The genera of Ichneumonidae, Part 3. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 13 (for 1969). 307 pp.Google Scholar
Townes, H. K. 1971. The genera of Ichneumonidae, Part 4. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 17. 372 pp.Google Scholar
Townes, H. K. & Townes, M. 1981. A revision of the Serphidae (Hymenoptera). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 32, 1541.Google Scholar
Viereck, H. L. 1912. Contribution to our knowlenge of bees and ichneumon-flies, including the description of twenty-one new genera and fifty-seven new species of ichneumon-flies. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 42, 613648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, O. 1911. Studien über das Artproblem. 2. Mitteilung. Über das Variieren der Hummeln. 2. Teil. (Schluss). Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1911, 3174.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1846. Descriptions of British Chalcidites. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4(1), 2932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiblen, G. D. 2002. How to be a fig wasp. Annual Review Entomology 47, 299330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wesmael, C. 1835. Monographie des Braconides de Belgique. Nouveaux Mémoires de l'Académie Royal des Sciences at Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles 9, 1252.Google Scholar
Wesmael, C. 1837. Monographie des Braconides de Belgique. Nouveaux Mémoires de l'Académie Royal des Sciences at Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles 10, 568.Google Scholar
Wesmael, C. 1838. Monographie des Braconides de Belgique. IV. Nouveaux Mémoires de l'Académie Royal des Sciences at Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles 11, 1166.Google Scholar
Wesmael, C. 1845. Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique 18(for 1844), 1239.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. O. 1854. Contributions to fossil entomology. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, London 10, 378–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, J. O. 1882. Description of new or imperfectly known species of Ichneumones adsciti. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 25, 1748.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. 1915. The ants of the Baltic Amber. Schriften der physikalische-ökonomischen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg 55, 1142.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. 1922. Ants of the American Museum Congo expedition. A contribution to the myrmecology of Africa. II. The ants collected by the American Museum Congo Expedition. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 45, 39269.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 1985. Ants of the Dominican amber (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). The subfamily Dolichoderinae. Psyche 92, 1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O. Eisner, T., Wheeler, G. C. & Wheeler, J. 1956. Aneuretus simoni Emery, a major link in ant evolution. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 115, 8199.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. & Taylor, R. W. 1964. A fossil ant colony: new evidence of social antiquity. Psyche 71, 93103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, H. 1879. On the Occurrence of Branchipus (or Chirocephalus) in a Fossil State, associated with Eosphaeroma and with numerous Insect Remains, in the Eocene Freshwater (Bembridge) Limestone of Gurnet Bay, Isle of Wight. Quarterly Journnal of the Geological Society, London 35, 342–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, D. S., Achterberg, K. van & Horstmann, K. 2005. World Ichneumonoidea 2004. Taxonomy, Biology, Morphology and Distribution. CD/DVD. Vancouver, Canada: Taxapad. www.taxapad.com.Google Scholar
Zhang, Haichun & Rasnitsyn, A. P. 2003. Some ichneumonids (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Ichneumonoidea) from the Upper Mesozoic of China and Mongolia. Cretaceous Research 24(1), 193202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Junfeng. 1989. [Fossil Insects from Shanwang, Shandong, China.] Jinan, China: Shandong Science and Technology Publishing House. 459 pp+92 pls. [In Chinese, with English summary.]Google Scholar
Zhang, , Junfeng, , Sun, B. & Zhang, X. 1994. [Miocene Insects and Spiders from Shanwang, Shandong.] Beijing: Science Press. 298 pp. [In Chinese, with English summary.]Google Scholar
Zherikhin, V. V. 1978. Development and change of Cretaceous and Cenozoic faunistic complexes. Proceedings of the Palaeontological Institute 165, 1197.Google Scholar
Zherikhin, V. V. 1980. [Characters of insect burial.] In Rohdendorf, B. B. & Rasnitsyn, A. P. (eds.) [The Historical Development of the Class Insecta,] 718. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta AN SSSR 175. 269 pp. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Zuparko, R. L. & Poinar, G. O. Jr. 1997. Aivalykus dominicanus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a new species from Dominican amber. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 99(4), 744–47.Google Scholar