Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T15:39:32.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Get access


The subfamily Microgastrinae is redefined; Cardiochilinae and Miracinae are placed as separate subfamilies. The Microgastrinae are divided into five tribes and 51 genera, 23 of which are new. The first two tribes, Apantelini and Microgastrini, have characteristically long ovipositor and are almost all solitary parasites of Microlepidoptera. The other three tribes, Forniciini, Cotesiini and Microplitini, have short ovipositor and are almost all parasites of Macrolepidoptera, usually gregarious. The genera Pseudapanteles, Parapanteles, Glyptapanteles and Protapanteles of Ashmead, Cotesia Cameron, Dolichogenidea and Diolcogaster Viereck are revived from synonymy, and the following new genera are described: Alphomelon, Choeras, Clarkinella, Deuterixys, Distatrix, Exix, Exoryza, Exulonyx, Iconella, Illidops, Nyereria, Papanteles, Paroplitis, Pelicope, Pholetesor, Rasivalva, Rhygoplitis, Sathon, Teremys, Venanides, Venanus, Wilkinsonellus, Xenogaster. Twenty new species are described and about 350 new combinations are given.

Research Article
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Only a few authors (Brues 1926,1933; Riek 1975) have used the correct stem of “gaster”, i.e. “gastr-” (Rules, Art. 29 and Appendix D, VII, Table 2 B, 14) to form family group names based on Microgaster: Since recent additions to the code (Bul. Z.N. 34: 170, 1977) give no support to continued use of incorrectly formed stems for family group names I am using Microgastrinae.

There is an alternative stem “gaster-” but its use in classical Greek is limited to poetry and it is never found in compound words containing “gaster”. On this evidence I doubt if the use of the stem “gaster-“ can be defended on linguistic grounds.



Ashmead, W.H. 1898. Descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4: 155171.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1900. Classification of the Ichneumon-flies, or the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 23: 1220.Google Scholar
Bock, W.J. 1977. Foundations and Methods of Evolutionary Classification. In Hecht, et al. , Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Vol. 14 NATO Adv. Study Inst. A. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Brues, C.T. 1926. Studies on Ethiopian Braconidae, with a catalogue of the African species. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 61: 205435.Google Scholar
Brues, C.T. 1933. The parasitic Hymenoptera of the Baltic Amber. Bernstein For. 3: 4178.Google Scholar
Capek, M. 1970. A new classification of the Braconidae (Hymenoptera) based on the cephalic structures of the final instar larva and biological evidence. Can. Ent. 102: 846875.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1862. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconen. Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 19: 225288.Google Scholar
Granger, C. 1949. Braconides de Madagascar. Mem. Inst. sci. Madagascar 2A. 428 pp.Google Scholar
Hecht, M.K. 1976. Phylogenetic inference and methodology as applied to the vertebrate record. Evol. Biol. 9: 335363.Google Scholar
Hecht, M.K. and Edwards, J.L.. 1977. The methodology of phylogenetic inference above the species level. In Hecht, et al. , Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Vol. 14. NATO Adv. Study Inst. A. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Kluge, A.G. and Farris, J.S.. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Syst. Zool. 18: 119.Google Scholar
Marsh, P.M. 1974. New combinations and new synonyms in North American Braconidae (Hymenoptera). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 76: 285289.Google Scholar
Marshall, T.A. 1885. Monograph of British Braconidae. I. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 1885: 1280.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W. 1920. A revision of the North American ichneumon-flies belonging to the genus Apanteles. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 58: 483576.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W. 1958. New neotropical wasps of the family Braconidae (Hymenoptera) in the U.S. National Museum. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 107: 405461.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1965. A reclassification of the tribe Microgasterini (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.), Suppl. 2: 1284.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1967. The Indo-australian species of the ultor-group of Apanteles Förster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) 21: 134.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1968. A revision of the genus Microgaster Latreille (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) 22: 3172.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1970. A revision of the N.W. European species of Microplitis Förster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Ent.) 25: 130.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1972. A revision of the north-western European species of the laevigatus-group of Apanteles Förster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bull. ent. Res. 61: 701743.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1973 A revision of the north-western European species of the vitripennis, pallipes, octonarius, triangulator, fraternus, formosus, parasitellae, metacarpalis and circumscriptus-groups of Apanteles Förster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bull. ent. Res. 63: 169228.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1974. A revision of the north-western European species of the glomeratus-group of Apanteles Förster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bull ent. Res. 64: 453524.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1976. A revision of the north-western European species of the merula, lacteus, vipio, ultor, ater, butalidis, popularis, carbonarius and validus-groups of Apanteles Förster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bull. ent. Res. 65: 687732.Google Scholar
Norton, W.N. and Vinson, S.B.. 1974. Antennal Sensilla of three parasitic Hymenoptera. Int. J. Insect Morph. 3: 305316.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A.P. 1969. Proiskhozhdenie i evolyutsia nizshikh pereponchatokrylykh. Trudy Pal. Inst. 123. 196 pp.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A.P. 1975 Vysshie pereponchatokrylye Mezozoya. Trudy Pal. Inst. 147. 134 pp.Google Scholar
Reinhard, H. 1880. Beitrage zur Kenntnis einiger Braconiden-Gattungen. 5. XVI. Zur Gattungen Microgaster Latr. Dt. ent. Z. 24: 353370.Google Scholar
Riek, E.F. 1975. in CSIRO, Canberra. The Insects of Australia. University Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Risbec, J. 1951. Les Microgasterinae d'A.O.F. Mem. Inst. franc. Afr. noir 13: 411473.Google Scholar
Saeger, H. de 1944. Microgasterinae (Hymenoptera Apocrita). Exploration du Parc National Albert. Fasc. 47. Bruxelles. 342 pp.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, B. et al. 1972. Phylogeny and Paleontology. Evol. Biol. 6: 3146.Google Scholar
Shenefelt, R.D. 1972. Braconidae 4, Microgasterinae Apanteles. pp. 429668 in Hymenoptm cat. (nov. ed. ).Google Scholar
Shenefelt, R.D. 1973. Braconidae 5, Microgasterinae. pp. 629805 in Hymenoptm cal. (nov. ed.).Google Scholar
Short, J.R.T. 1953. A grouping by larval characters of some species of Apanteles (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bull. ent. Res. 44: 327332.Google Scholar
Smith, D.R. 1980. Notes on sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) with two new species and a key to North American Loderus. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 82: 482487.Google Scholar
Telenga, N.A. 1955. Fauna SSSR. Pereponchatokrylie V part 4. Braconidae, Microgasterinae 1233.Google Scholar
Tobias, V.I. 1976. Novye Vidy Naezdnikov-Braconid iz Roda Apanteles Först. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) s Dalnego Vostoka. Trudy zool. Inst. 67: 9096.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D.S. 1932. A revision of the Ethiopian species of genus Apanteles (Hym. Braconidae). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 80: 301344.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D.S. 1940 On the identity of Apanteles carbonarius Wesmael with the description of a new, closely related, palaearctic species (Hym. Braconidae). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 9: 157163.Google Scholar