Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T11:54:31.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PHYLOGENY AND CLASSIFICATION OF EUPELMIDAE, WITH A REVISION OF THE WORLD GENERA OF CALOSOTINAE AND METAPELMATINAE (HYMENOPTERA: CHALCIDOIDEA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Gary A. P. Gibson
Gary A. P. Gibson*
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada Research Branch, K.W. Neatby Building, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6
Get access

Abstract

Three subfamilies are classified in Eupelmidae: Calosotinae Bouček, Eupelminae Walker, and Metapelmatinae Bouček. Diagnoses of these three subfamilies and of Tanaostigmatidae are given, together with a key to distinguish members from each other and from other Chalcidoidea. Genera of Calosotinae and Metapelmatinae are revised for the world, with a key to genera given for both subfamilies. For each genus the following is provided: synonymy, description of structural features of males and females, notes on distribution and hosts, available keys to species listed by biogeographic region, and a catalog of species. New generic combinations are made in the catalogs of species based on examination of type specimens of the species. Eight genera are included in Calosotinae [type species in brackets]: Archaeopelma gen.nov. [A. tropeotergum sp.nov.], Licrooides gen.nov. [L. umbilicatus sp.nov.], Paraeusandalum gen.nov. [P. chilense sp.nov.], Eusandalum Ratzeburg, Chirolophus Haliday, Calosota Curtis, Balcha Walker, and Tanythorax gen.nov. [T. spinosus sp.nov.]. Four genera are included in Metapelmatinae: Metapelma Westwood, Neanastatus Girault, Eopelma gen.nov. [E. mystax sp.nov.], and Lambdobregma gen.nov. [L. schwarzii (Ashmead) comb.nov.]. The following are proposed as new synonymies: Notosandalum De Santis and Exosandalum Bouček = Eusandalum Ratzeburg, and Metacalosoter Masi = Calosota Curtis. Eighteen structural features of adults of the three eupelmid subfamilies, and of other Chalcidoidea including Tanaostigmatidae, Encyrtidae, Aphelinidae, and Pteromalidae, are studied to delimit character states and determine their distribution among the higher taxa. Twenty-two additional features of adults of Calosotinae and Metapelmatinae are studied for supplemental evidence of relationships among the genera in these two subfamilies. Observed character-state distributions are used to postulate character polarity and homoplastic states, and hypotheses of monophyly and relationships among taxa are based on proposed synapomorphic states. Aphelinidae sensu lato (including the subfamily Eriaporinae) are indicated as either a paraphyletic or polyphyletic taxon if the Eriaporinae are included but the Signiphoridae are excluded. Tanaostigmatidae sensu lato (including the genus Cynipencyrtus Ishii) are indicated as the sister group of Encyrtidae based on a relatively long mesoscutal process for the muscle pl2–t2c, and structure of the articulation between the mesoscutum and scutellar-axillar complex. The genus Cynipencyrtus Ishii is indicated to be most closely related to Encyrtidae based on common possession of transverse axillae and mesotibial apical pegs. Possible relationships among Calosotinae, Metapelmatinae, and Eupelminae, and among these and Tanaostigmatidae + Encyrtidae remain unresolved. There are no derived character states unique to either Eupelmidae, or Eupelmidae + (Tanaostigmatidae + Encyrtidae), so that these taxa and relationships are not definitively supported as monophyletic. Eupelmidae may represent a grade-level taxon with membership determined by similar suites of apomorphic states that function to enhance jumping ability. Cladograms are used to illustrate alternate hypotheses of character-state evolution and relationships among the genera of Calosotinae and Metapelmatinae. Distribution of character states for the higher taxa and for each genus of Calosotinae and Metapelmatinae is summarized in two tables. Scanning electron photomicrographs are used to illustrate structural features.

Résumé

Trois sous-familles sont classées parmi les Eupelmidae: les Calosotinae Bouček, les Eupelminae Walker et les Metapelmatinae Bouček. Une analyse de ces trois sous-familles et des Tanaostigmatidae est présentée, ainsi qu'une clé permettant de distinguer les membres entre eux et de les différencier des autres Chalcidoidea. Les genres des Calosotinae et des Metapelmatinae sont révisés à l'échelle mondiale, et une clé d'identification des genres donnés pour les deux sous-familles est présentée. Pour chaque genre, on fournit les renseignements suivants: les synonymes, la description des caractères structuraux des mâles et des femelles, des notes sur la distribution et les hôtes, les clés disponibles pour l'identification des espèces énumérées par région biogéographique et un catalogue d'espèces. Les nouvelles combinaisons de genres qui figurent dans la catalogue sont basées sur l'examen de spécimens type de l'espèce. Huit genres sont inclus dans les Calosotinae [espèce type entre crochets]: Archaeopelma gen.nov. [A. tropeotergum sp.nov.], Licrooides gen.nov. [L. umbilicatus sp.nov.], Paraeusandalum gen.nov. [P. chilense sp.nov.], Eusandalum Ratzeburg, Chirolophus Haliday, Calosota Curtis, Balcha Walker et Tanythorax gen.nov. [T. spinosus sp.nov.]. Quatre genres sont inclus dans les Metapelmatinae: Metapelma Westwood, Neanastatus Girault, Eupelma gen.nov. [E. mystax sp.nov.], et Lambdobregma gen.nov. [L. schwarzii (Ashmead) comb.nov.]. Les nouveaux synonymes suivants sont proposés: Notosandalum De Santis et Exosandalum Bouček = Eusandalum Ratzeburg, et Metacalosoter Masi = Calosota Curtis. Dix-huit caractères structuraux des adultes des trois sous-familles d'eupelmidés et d'autres Chalcidoidea, y compris les Tanaostigmatidae, les Encyrtidae, les Aphelinidae et les Pteromalidae sont étudiés afin de délimiter les caractéristiques et d'établir leur distribution parmi les taxons supérieurs. Vingt-deux autres caractères additionnels des adultes des Calosotinae et des Metapelmatinae sont étudiés afin d'obtenir d'autres preuves de relations entre les genres dans ces deux sous-familles. La distribution des caractéristiques qui a été établie sert à postuler la polarité de transformation des caractères et les caractères homoplastiques, tandis que les hypothèses de monophylétisme et de relations entre les taxons sont basées sur les synamorphies proposées. Les Aphelinidae au sens large (y compris la sous-famille des Eriaporinae) forme un taxon paraphylétique ou polyphylétique si les Eriaporinae en font partie et qu'en sont exclus les Signiphoridae. Les Tanaostigmatidae au sens large (y compris le genre Cynipencyrtus Ishii) forment un taxon frère des Encyrtidae en raison de la présence d'une apophyse mésoscutale relativement longue pour le muscle pl2–t2c, et de la structure de l'articulation entre le mésoscutum et le complex scutellaire-axillaire. Le genre Cynipencyrtus Ishii est le plus étroitement relié aux Encyrtidae en raison de la possession commune d'axilles transverses et d'organes sensoriels en forme de cheville à l'apex du mésotibia. Les relations possibles entre les Calosotinae, les Metapelmatinae et les Eupelminae, et entre ces derniers et les Tanaostigmatidae + Encyrtidae ne sont pas encore élucidées. Aucune caractéristique dérivée n'est unique aux eupelmidae ni aux Eupelmidae + (Tanaostigmatidae + Encyrtidae), aussi n'y a-t-il pas de preuve définitive à l'appui du monophylétisme de ces taxons et de ces relations. Les Eupelmidae peuvent représenter un taxon informel dont les membres présentent des séries semblables de caractères dérivés favorisant une meilleure aptitude au saut. Des cladogrammes sont utilisés pour illustrer les autres hypothèses sur l'évolution des caractéristiques et les relations entre les genres des Calosotinae et des Metapelmatinae. La distribution des caractéristiques pour les taxons supérieurs et pour chaque genre des Calosotinae et des Metapelmatinae est résumée dans deux tableaux. Des photographies prises au microscope électronique à balayage servent à illustrer les caractères structuraux.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 121 , Supplement S149 , 1989 , pp. 3 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1989

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashmead, W.H. 1888. Descriptions of some unknown parasitic Hymenoptera in the collection of the Kansas State Agricultural College, received from Prof. E.A. Popenoe. Kansas St. agr. Coll. Exper. Sta. Bull. 3, Appendix, i–viii.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1890. Remarks on the chalcid genus Halidea. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 1: 264–266.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1896. On the genera of the Eupelminae. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4: 4–20.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1899. Classification of the old family Chalcididae. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4: 242–249.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1900 a. On the genera of the chalcid-flies belonging to the subfamily Encyrtinae. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 22: 23–412.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1900 b. Report upon the aculeate Hymenoptera of the islands of St. Vincent and Grenada, with additions to the parasitic Hymenoptera and a list of the described Hymenoptera of the West Indies. Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 48: 207–367.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1904 a. Classification of the chalcid flies of the superfamily Chalcidoidea, with descriptions of new species in the Carnegie Museum, collected in South America by Herbert H. Smith. Mem. Carneg. Mus. 1: i–ix + 225–551.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1904 b. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera from Japan. — II. J. N. Y. ent. Soc. 12: 146–165.Google Scholar
Baltazar, C.R. 1966. A catalogue of Philippine Hymenoptera (with a bibliography, 1758–1963). Pacif. Insects Monogr. 8: 1–488.Google Scholar
Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg, Stockholm. 138 pp.Google Scholar
Bolivar, y Pieltain, C. 1923 a. Estudios sobre Calcididos de la familia Eupelmidos. I. Sobre el genero Polymoria Forst. Revta Fitopatol. 1: 20–24.Google Scholar
Bolivar, y Pieltain, C. 1923 b. Estudios sobre Calcididos de la familia Eupelmidos. II. Especies espanolas de Calosota Curt. Revta Fitopatol. 1: 62–69.Google Scholar
Bolivar, y Pieltain, C. 1925. Sur quelques Eupelmidae de l'Egypte (Hyménopt. Chalcidiens). Bull. Soc. R. ent. Egypte 1925: 39–45.Google Scholar
Bolivar, y Pieltain, C. 1926. Estudio monografico del genero Polymoria Forst. (Hym. Chale). EOS 2: 361–383.Google Scholar
Bolivar, y Pieltain, C. 1929. Estudio monografico de las especies espanolas del genero Calosota Curtis (Hym. Chale). EOS 5: 123–142.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1958. Eine Cleonyminen-Studie; Bestimmungstabelle der Gattungen mit Beschreibungen und Notizen, eingeschlossen einige Eupelmidae (Hym. Chalcidoidea). Acta faun. ent. Mus. natn. Pragae 32: 353–386.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1967. Revision of Palaearctic species of Eusandalum Ratz. (Hym., Eupelmidae). Acta ent. bohemoslov. 64: 261–293.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1968. Contributions to the Czechoslovak fauna of Chalcidoidea (Hym.). Acta faun. ent. Mus. natn. Pragae 12: 231–260.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1970. Contribution to the knowledge of Italian Chalcidoidea, based mainly on a study at the Institute of Entomology in Turin, with descriptions of some new European species (Hymenoptera). Mem. Soc. ent. Ital. 49: 35–102.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1976. Changes in the classification of some African Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 39: 345–355.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1988. Australasian Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). A biosystematic revision of genera of fourteen families, with a reclassification of species. CAB International Institute of Entomology, The Cambrian News Ltd., Aberystwyth. 832 pp.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z., Subba Rao, B.R., and Farooqi, S.I.. 1978. A preliminary review of Pteromalidae (Hymenoptera) of India and adjacent countries. Oriental Insects 12: 433–468.Google Scholar
Brèthes, J. 1916. Hyménoptères parasites de l'Amérique méridionale. An. Mus. nac. Hist. nat. B. Aires 27: 401–430.Google Scholar
Brèthes, J. 1917. Quatre Hyménoptères parasites du Chili. An. Zool. Aplic. 1: 25–29.Google Scholar
Brues, C.T. 1906. Descriptions of parasitic Hymenoptera from Cape Colony. Bull. Wise. Nat. Hist. Soc. 4: 103–112.Google Scholar
Brulle, A. 1834. Historie Naturelle des Insectes. IV. Paris. 479 pp.Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1973. North American species of Calosota Curtis (Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae). J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 63: 26–31.Google Scholar
Burks, B.D. 1979. Family Eupelmidae. pp. 878–889 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, B., Smith, D.R., and Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico, Vol. 1. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 1198 pp.Google Scholar
Cameron, P. 1908. On two new genera of Chalcididae from Borneo. Entomologist 41: 151–153.Google Scholar
Cameron, P. 1909. Descriptions of three undescribed species of Chalcididae from Borneo (Hym.). Deut. ent. Z. 1909: 205–207.Google Scholar
Compere, H., and Annecke, D.P.. 1960. A reappraisal of Aphycus Mayr, Metaphycus Mercet, and allied genera (Hymenopt: Encyrtidae). J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 23: 375–389.Google Scholar
Curtis, J. 1836. British Entomology, being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 13. London. Folio 578–625.Google Scholar
Dalla Torre, K.W. von. 1897. Zur Nomenclatur der Chalcididen-Genera. Wien. ent. Ztg. 16: 83–88.Google Scholar
Dalla Torre, K.W. von. 1898. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hueusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. V. Chalcididae et Proctotrapidae. Leipzig. 598 pp.Google Scholar
De Santis, L. 1967. Catalogo de los Himenopteros Argentinos de la serie Parasítica, incluyendo Bethyloidea. Provincia de Buenos Aires Gobernacion, Comision de Investigacion Cientifica. La Plata. 337 pp.Google Scholar
De Santis, L. 1968. Nuevo genero y especie de Calosotinae de la Republica Argentina (Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae). Revta Mus. La Plata (n. s.) 10: 145–148.Google Scholar
De Santis, L. 1979. Catalogo de los Himenopteros Calcidoideos de America al sur de los Estados Unidos. Comision de Investigaciones Cientificas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Publicacion especial. La Plata. 488 pp.Google Scholar
Dodd, A.P. 1917. Records and descriptions of Australian Chalcidoidea. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 41: 344–368.Google Scholar
Domenichini, G. 1952. Morfologia, variabilita dei caratteri e speciografia dell' Anagyrus pseudococci Gir. (Hymen. Chaldioidea). Boll. Zool. agr. Bachic. 18: 117–181.Google Scholar
Domenichini, G. 1953. Studio sulla morfologia dell'addome degli Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea. Boll. Zool. agr. Bachic. 19: 183–298.Google Scholar
Domenichini, G. 1954. Sulla morfologia e posizione sistematica dei Thysanidae (= Signiphoridae) (Hym. Chalcidoidea). Ann. Fac. agr. Milano 3: 117–132.Google Scholar
Eady, R.D. 1968. Some illustrations of microsculpture in the Hymenoptera. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 43: 66–72.Google Scholar
Enderlin, G. 1912. Zur Kenntnis der Chalcididen Ceylons. (Hym). Ent. Mitt. 1: 144–148.Google Scholar
Erdös, J. 1946. Genera nova et species novae Chalcidoidarum (Hym.). Annls hist.-nat. Mus. natn. Hung. 39: 131–165.Google Scholar
Erdös, J. 1955. Studia Chalcididologica hungarica. Annls hist.-nat. Mus. natn. Hung. (s. n.) 6: 285–300.Google Scholar
Erdös, J. 1960. Chalcidoidea II. Fauna Hungariae, XII 52: 1–230.Google Scholar
Ferrière, C. 1935. Notes on some bred exotic Eupelmidae (Hym. Chalc). Stylops 4: 145–153.Google Scholar
Ferrière, C. 1938. Eupelmides exotiques (Hymenopt. Chalcididae). I. Les genres Metapelma Westw., Anastatoidea Ganan et Neanastatus Girault. Annls Soc. ent. Fr. 107: 25–72.Google Scholar
Ferrière, C. 1966. Eupelmidae du Sahara (Hym. Chalcidoidea). Mitt. Schweiz, ent. Ges. 39: 118–128.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1856. Hymenopterologische Studien. 2. Heft. Chalcidiae und Proctotrupii. Aachen. 152 pp.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1860. Eine Centurie neuer Hymenopteren. Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 17: 93–153.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1878. Kleine Monographien parasitischer Hymenoptern. Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 35: 42–82.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1919. Report on a small collection of Indian parasitic Hymenoptera. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 56: 513–524.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1922. Descriptions of miscellaneous new reared parasitic Hymenoptera. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 61(24): 1–24.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1925. A second lot of parasitic Hymenoptera from the Philippines. Philipp. J. Sci. 27: 83–109.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1927. Miscellaneous descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera with some synonymical notes. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 71(4): 1–39.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B. 1951. Some synonymy and new combinations in Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Can. Ent. 83: 170–176.Google Scholar
Gahan, A.B., and Fagan, M.M.. 1923. The type species of the genera of Chalcidoidea or chalcid-flies. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. 124: 1–173.Google Scholar
Gauld, I.D. 1985. The phylogeny, classification and evolution of parasitic wasps of the subfamily Ophioninae (Ichneumonidae). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. 51: 61–185.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, J. 1946. Contribution à l'étude des Microhyménoptères du Congo belge. X. — Nouvelles dénom inations pour quelques genres de Chalcidoidea et Mymaroidea. Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr. 39: 367–373.Google Scholar
Gibson, G.A.P. 1985. Some pro- and mesothoracic characters important for phylogenetic analysis of Hymenoptera, with a review of terms used for structures. Can. Ent. 117: 1395–1443.Google Scholar
Gibson, G.A.P. 1986 a. Evidence for monophyly and relationships of Chalcidoidea, Mymaridae, and Mymarommatidae (Hymenoptera: Terebrantes). Can. Ent. 118: 205–240.Google Scholar
Gibson, G.A.P. 1986 b. Mesothoracic skeletomusculature and mechanics of flight and jumping in Eupelminae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea: Eupelmidae). Can. Ent. 118: 691–728.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1913 a. A few new chalcidoid Hymenoptera from Queensland, Australia. Bull. Wis. nat. Hist. Soc. (n. s.) 11: 35–48.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1913 b. New genera and species of chalcidoid Hymenoptera in the South Australian Museum. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 37: 67–115.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1914. Some new genera and species of chalcidoid Hymenoptera of the family Encyrtidae from Australia. Societas ent. 29: 22–24, 29–30, 33–34, 36–37.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1915 a. Australian Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea — V.I. The family Encyrtidae with descriptions of new genera and species. Mem. Qd Mus. 4: 1–184.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1915 b. Four new encyrtids from Sicily and the Philippines. Entomologist 48: 184–186.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1917 a. Notes on chalcid flies, chiefly from California. J. Ent. Zool. 9: 8–12.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1917 b. Some new Australian chalcid-flies, mostly of the family Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 5: 29–37.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1918. Several new chalcid-flies from Australia. Redia 14: 1–3.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1920. New genera and species of chalcid-flies from Australia (Hymenoptera). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 8: 37–50.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1921. Miscellaneous species of chalcid-flies from Australia (Hymenoptera, Chalcididae). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 9: 185–191.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1922 a. New chalcid-flies from eastern Australia I. (Hymenoptera, Chalcididae). Insecutorlnscit. menstr. 10: 39–49.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1922 b. New chalcid-flies from eastern Australia — II. (Hymenoptera, Chalcididae). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 10: 100–108.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1922 c. New Eupelminae from Australia (Hymenoptera). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 10: 108–110.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1922 d. New Australian Eusandalum (Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 10: 155–156.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1923 a. Remarkable chalcid-flies collected in northern Australia by A. P. Dodd (Hymenoptera). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 11: 96–100.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1923 b. Microscopitis, womanitis and new Hexapoda. Private publ., Sidney. 7 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1925. Indications (in new insects) of ruling power and law in nature. Private pubi., Brisbane. 3 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1926. Notes and descriptions of Australian chalcid-flies — IV (Hymenoptera). Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 14: 58–73.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1927. Four new chalcid flies from the Philippines. Philipp. J. Sci. 32: 553–555.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1928. Some new hexapods stolen from authority. Private publ., Brisbane. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1929. Notes on, and descriptions of, chalcid wasps in the South Australian Museum. Concluding paper. Trans. R. Soc. S. Amt. 53: 309–346.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1930. New pests from Australia V.I.. Private publ., Brisbane. 5 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1932. New pests from Australia X. Private publ., Brisbane. 6 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1933 a. Some beauties inhabitant not of commercial boudoirs but of nature's bosom, notably new insects. Private publ., Brisbane. 5 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1933 b. Some beauties inhabitant not of the boudoirs of commerce but of nature's bosom — new insects. Private publ., Brisbane. 2 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1934. New Capsidae and Hymenoptera, with note on an unmentionable. Private publ., Sydney. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Gordh, G. 1979. Superfamily Chalcidoidea. pp. 743–1043 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, B., Smith, D.R., and Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico, Vol. 1. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 1198 pp.Google Scholar
Gourlay, E.S. 1928. Notes and descriptions of New Zealand Hymenoptera. Trans. Proc. N. Z. Inst. 59: 368–373.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1969 a. Some Eupelmidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) new to Britain, with notes on new synonymy in this family. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (E) 38: 89–94.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1969 b. The Pteromalidae of Northwestern Europe (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.), Suppl. 16. 908 pp.Google Scholar
Grissell, E.E. 1980. Superfamily Chalcidoidea. pp. 1–50 in Syllabus for Parasitic Hymenoptera Training Session I, June 23–28, 1980, College Park, Maryland. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Haliday, A.H. 1862. Charactères de deux nouveaux genres d'hyménoptères de la famille des Chalcididae. Annls Soc. ent. Fr. 2: 115–118.Google Scholar
Harris, R.A. 1979. A glossary of surface sculpturing. Calif. Dept. FoodAgr., Occ. Pap. Ent. 28: 1–31.Google Scholar
Hayat, M. 1975. Some Indian species of Anastatus (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea, Eupelmidae). Oriental Insects 9:261–271.Google Scholar
Hayat, M. 1983. The genera of Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera) of the world. Syst. Ent. 8: 63–102.Google Scholar
Hayat, M., and M. Verma. 1980. The aphelinid subfamily Eriaporinae (Hym.: Chalcidoidea). Oriental Insects 14: 29–40.Google Scholar
Hecht, M.K., and Edwards, J.L.. 1977. The methodology of phylogenetic inference above the species level. pp. 3–5 in Hecht, M.K., Goody, P.C., and Hecht, B.M. (Eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. New York.Google Scholar
Hedqvist, K.-J. 1956. Studien uber Chalcidoidea. II. Eine neue Calosota-Art aus Schweden nebst Bestimmungstabelle der palaarktischen Arten. Ent. Tidskr. 77: 96–101.Google Scholar
Hedqvist, K.-J. 1961. Notes on Cleonymidae (Hym. Chalcidoidea). I. Ent. Tidskr. 82: 91–110.Google Scholar
Hedqvist, K.-J. 1970. Hymenoptera (Chalcidoidea); Eupelmidae. S. Afr. Animal Life 14: 402–444.Google Scholar
Hennessey, R.D. 1981 a. Setal patterns of the wings of Aphelinus, Mesidia, and Mesidiopsis (Hym.: Aphelinidae), their value as taxonomie characters. Entomophaga 26: 363–374.Google Scholar
Hennessey, R.D. 1981 b. At-rest setal wing coupling and restraining mechanisms in the Encyrtidae and Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Ann. ent Soc. Am. 74: 172–176.Google Scholar
Heraty, J.M., and Darling, D.C.. 1984. Comparative morphology of the planidial larvae of Eucharitidae and Perilampidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Syst. Ent. 9: 309–328.Google Scholar
Hoffer, A. 1970. Erster Beitrag zur Taxonomie der palaearktischen Arten der Gattung Aphidencyrtus Ashm. (Hym., Chalc, Encyrtidae). Studia Ent. Forest. 1: 25–42.Google Scholar
Ishii, T. 1928. The Encyrtidae of Japan. Bull. Imp. Agr. Exp. Sta. Japan 3: 79–160.Google Scholar
Johnson, N.F. 1984. Systematics of Nearctic Telenomus: Classification and revisions of the podisi and phymatae species groups (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). Bull. Ohio Biol. Surv. (n. s.) 6. x + 113 pp.Google Scholar
Kieffer, J.J., and Joergensen, P.. 1910. Gallen und Gallentiere aus Argentinien. Zentbl. Backt. ParasitKde (2) 27: 362–444.Google Scholar
LaSalle, J. 1987. New World Tanaostigmatidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Contrib. Am. ent. Inst. 23: 1–181.Google Scholar
LaSalle, J., and Le, L.M.Beck. 1983. The occurrence of encyrtiform eggs in the Tanaostigmatidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 85: 397–398.Google Scholar
LaSalle, J., and Noyes, J.S.. 1985. New family placement for the genus Cynipencyrtus (Hymenoptera; Chalcidoidea; Tanaostigmatidae). J. N. y. ent. Soc. 93: 1261–1264.Google Scholar
Mani, M.S. 1935. New Indian Chalcidoidea (Parasitic Hymenoptera). Rec. Indian Mus. 37: 241–258.Google Scholar
Mani, M.S., Dubey, O.P., Kaul, B.K., and Saraswat, G.G.. 1973. On some Chalcidoidea from India. Mem. School Ent., Agra 2: 1–128.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1917. Chalcididae of the Seychelles islands. Novit. zool. 24: 121–230.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1922. Calcididi del Giglio. Terza serie: Eupelminae (seguito), Pteromalinae (partim). Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria 50: 140–174.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1923 a. Un nuovo Eupelmino, supposto femmina di Chirolophus (Hym. Chalcididae). Boll. Soc. ent. Ital. 55:9–11.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1923 b. Descrizione di due nuove specie Africane di Metapelma (Hymen. Chalcididae). Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria 51: 38–41.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1925. Su alcuni Calcididi della Tunisia. Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria 53: 281–290.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1926. H. Sauters's Formosa-Ausbeute. Chalcididae (Hym.). I. Teil. Toryminae, Encyrtinae, Eupelminae, Cleonyminae, Pteromalinae, Eucharidinae, Perilampinae. Konowia 5: 1–20, 170–178, 264–279, 325–381.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1940. Descrizione di una nuovo specie del genere Polymoria (Hymen. Chalcid.). Boll. Soc. ent. Ital. 72: 169–172.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1941 a. Descrizione di un nuovo genere di Eupelminae della Somalia (Hymen. Chalcididae). Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria 61: 153–158.Google Scholar
Masi, L. 1941 b. Note su alcuni Imenotteri parassiti raccolti nella Sila, con descrizione di una nuova Polymoria. Atti. Soc. ital. Sci. nat. 80: 181–188.Google Scholar
Mason, W.R.M. 1964. Regional color patterns in the parasitic Hymenoptera. Can. Ent. 96: 132–134.Google Scholar
Motschulsky, V. de. 1859. Insectes des Indes Orientales, et de contrées analogues (2de serie). Etudes Entomologiques 8: 25–118.Google Scholar
Narendran, T.C. 1984. Chapter 9. Chalcids and sawflies associated with plant galls, pp. 273–303in Ananthakrishnan, T.N. (Ed.), Biology of Gall Insects. Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi. 362 pp.Google Scholar
Nikolskaya, M.N. 1952. The chalcid fauna of the U.S.R. Chalcidoidea. Opred. Faun. SSSR, 44. Akad. Nauk S.S.R. Moscow and Leningrad. 574 pp. [In Russian. English translation: Israel Prog. Sci. Transi., Jerusalem 1963. 593 pp.]Google Scholar
Noyes, J.S., and Hayat, M.. 1984. A review of the genera of Indo-Pacific Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) 48: 131–395.Google Scholar
Packard, C.M. 1928. The Hessian fly in California. Tech. Bull. U.S.D.A. 81: 1–25.Google Scholar
Peck, O. 1951. Superfamily Chalcidoidea. pp. 410–594 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., et al. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico, Synoptic Catalog. U.S.D.A. Agric. Monogr. 2. 1420 pp.Google Scholar
Peck, O. 1963. A catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Can. Ent. Suppl. 30. 1092 pp.Google Scholar
Peck, O., Bouček, Z., and Hoffcr, A.. 1964. Keys to the Chalcidoidea of Czechoslovakia (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 34: 1–121.Google Scholar
Prinsloo, G.L. 1985. Some chalcidoid parasitoids (Hymenoptera) from the central Namib Desert. Cimbebasia (ser. A) 7: 87–105.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A.P. 1980. Origin and evolution of Hymenoptera. Trudy paleont. Inst. 174: 1–190. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J.T.C. 1848. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten in forstlicher und entomologischer Beziehung. 2. Berlin. VI + 238 pp.Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J.T.C. 1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten in forstlicher und entomologischer Beziehung. 3. Berlin. VI–XVIII + 272 pp.Google Scholar
Riek, E.F. 1970. Hymenoptera. pp. 867–959in The Insects of Australia. C.I.O. Melbourne University Press, Carlton. 1029 pp.Google Scholar
Risbec, J. 1951. Les Chalcidoides d'A.O.F. Mem. Inst. fr. Afr. noire 13: 5–409.Google Scholar
Risbec, J. 1952. Contribution à ľetude des Chalcidoides de Madagascar. Mem. Inst, scient. Madagascar (ser. E.) 2: 1–449.Google Scholar
Risbec, J. 1953. Chalcidoides et Proctotrupoides de l'Afrique occidentale française (2 Supplément). Bull. Inst. fr. Afr. noire 15: 549–609.Google Scholar
Risbec, J. 1956. Les parasites des insectes borers du riz au Cameroun. Agron. Trop. 11: 234–247.Google Scholar
Risbec, J. 1958. Chalcidoides nouveaux d'Afrique du Sud. Occ. Pap. nat. Mus. S. Rhodesia 22(B): 147–162.Google Scholar
Rondani, C. 1877. Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus. VI. Parmae. 304 pp.Google Scholar
Ruschka, F. 1921. Chalcididenstudien I. Teil. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 70: 234–315.Google Scholar
Schrottky, C. 1906. Ueber die Lebensweise zweier Pachymerus (Bruchidae) und ihrer parasiten. Zs. wiss. Insektenbiol. 2: 98–102.Google Scholar
Schulz, W.A. 1906. Spolia Hymenopterologica. Paderborn. 355 pp.Google Scholar
Shafee, S.A. 1973. Two new species of Eupelmidae from India (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Acta zool. lilloana 30: 135–140.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1928. Morphology and evolution of the insect head and its appendages. Smithson. misc. Colls. 81(3): 1–158.Google Scholar
Subba Rao, B.R., and Hayat, M.. 1985. The Chalcidoidea of India and the adjacent countries. Oriental Insects 19: 169–310 + suppl. pp. 310a–0.Google Scholar
Subba Rao, B.R., and Hayat, M.. 1986. The Chalcidoidea (Inserta: Hymenoptera) of India and the adjacent countries. Oriental Insects 20: 1–430.Google Scholar
Tachikawa, T. 1973. Discovery of the hosts of Cynipencyrtus bicolor Ishii and Microterys tarumiensis Tachikawa (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea-Encyrtidae). Trans. Shikoku Ent. Soc. 11: 133–134.Google Scholar
Tachikawa, T. 1978 a. Hosts of the Encyrtidae in the world (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Trans. Shikoku Ent. Soc. 14: 43–63.Google Scholar
Tachikawa, T. 1978 b. A note on the genus Cynipencyrtus Ishii (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea-Encyrtidae). Trans. Shikoku Ent. Soc. 14: 69–71.Google Scholar
Thomson, C.G. 1876. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae. Tom. IV. Pteromalus (Svederus). Lundae. 192 pp.Google Scholar
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1963. A new hymenopteran genus from Baltic amber. Palaeo. J. 3: 144–152.Google Scholar
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1968. Structural features of the female abdomen in the Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera) and their taxonomie significance. Ent. Rev. 47: 277–285.Google Scholar
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1971. Problems of morphological evolution and classification of the family Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Proc. X.I. Int. Congr. Ent., Moscow, 1968 1: 310–311.Google Scholar
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1977. The characteristic features of the morphology of adult encyrtids (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Encyrtidae) and their systematic significance. Trudy Vses. Ent. Ob. Akad. Nauk SSSR. 58: 145–199. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1978. Superfamily Chalcidoidea. 6. Family Eupelmidae. pp. 229–236 in Medvedev, G.S. (Ed.), Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the U.S.R. Vol. I.I. Pt. II. Nauka Publishers, Leningrad. 756 pp. [In Russian. English translation: Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 1987. 1341 pp.]Google Scholar
Underwood, G. 1982. Parallel evolution in the context of character analysis. J. Linn. Soc., Zool. 74: 245–266.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1833. Monographia Chalcidum. Ent. Mag. 1: 367–384.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1837. Monographia Chalciditum. Ent. Mag. 4: 349–364.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1838. Descriptions of some Chalcidites discovered by C. Darwin, Esq. Ent. Mag. 5: 469–477.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1839. Monographia Chalciditum. 2. London. 100 pp.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1846 a. List of the specimens of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part I.—Chalcidites. London, vii + 100 pp.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1846 b. Characters of some undescribed species of Chalcidites. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 17: 108–115.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1848. List of the specimens of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part II.—Chalcidites. Additional species. London, pp. i–iv + 99–237.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1862. Notes on Chalcidites, and characters of undescribed species. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Land. (ser. 3) 1: 345–397.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1872. Notes on Chalcidiae. Part V. — Encyrtidae, Myinidae, Eupelmidae, Cleonymidae, Spalangiidae, Pirenidae. London, pp. 71–88.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1873. Economy of Chalcidiae, and characters of a few undescribed species. Entomologist 6: 394–399.Google Scholar
Westwood, J.O. 1835. Characters of new genera and species of hymenopterous insects. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 3: 51–54, 68–72.Google Scholar
Westwood, J.O. 1839. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 49–80. [Issued with: An introduction to the modern classification of insects, no. 13.] London. 158 pp.Google Scholar
Westwood, J.O. 1874. Thesaurus Entomologicus Oxoniensis; or, illustrations of new interesting insects, for the most part contained in the collections presented to the University of Oxford by the Rev. F. W. Hope. London, xxiv + 205 pp.Google Scholar
Yasnosh, V.A. 1976. Classification of the parasitic Hymenoptera of the family Aphelinidae (Chalcidoidea). Ent. Rev. 55: 114–120.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, C.M. 1984. The insects and arachnids of Canada. Part 12. The families and subfamilies of Canadian chalcidoid wasps. Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea. Agric. Can. Publ. 1760. 149 pp.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, C.M., and Ishii, T.. 1965. Insects of Micronesia, Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae, Encyrtidae (part), Pteromalidae. Insects Micronesia 19: 109–178.Google Scholar