Dops scutellaris (Muesebeck). Papp 1988: 150. Apanteles scutellaris Muesebeck. Austin and Dangerfield 1992: 9; Whitfield 1995: 247; van Achterberg 2003: 29. Remarks. After examining the holotype (NMNH), we consider this species as belonging to Illidops, as pointed out a quarter of a century ago by Papp (1988). Papp transferred the species from Apanteles to Illidops in his treatment of the European fauna, when he adopted the then recent reclassification of Microgastrinae by Mason (1981). Strangely, his action was overlooked, ignored or rejected by the taxonomic community, and even authors following the Mason system of genera (e.g., Austin and Dangerfield 1992, Whitfield 1995) did not treat the species as Illidops but kept it as Apanteles. Van Achterberg (2003) considered Illidops as a subgenus of Apanteles, and transferred all of the European species, including I. scutellaris, back to Apanteles. All of the character defining Illidops (as outlined in the above section “Definition of the genus Apanteles sensu stricto”) are present in I. scutellaris, and thus we here transfer the species Apanteles scutellaris back to Illidops.Jose L. Fernandez-Triana et al. / ZooKeys 383: 1?65 (2014)5. Rhygoplitis sanctivincenti (Ashmead, 1900), comb. n. Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, 1900: 279. (Saint Vincent). Remarks. The species Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, 1900 was described from a single male, but the type has never been found in the BMNH and is probably lost (Gavin Broad, personal communication). Thus, later researchers reviewing the genus (Muesebeck 1921, Nixon 1965) or cataloguing it (Sz ligeti 1904, Shenefelt 1972) were unable to study it, and could only rely upon the very poor original description and key from Ashmead (1900: 279?80). Those five papers are the only publications citing the name Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, and the species has been considered as belonging to Apanteles since its original description. However, after Mason’s (1981) paper splitting Apanteles into several genera, it is evident that A. sanctivincenti Ashmead belongs to a AMG9810 site different genus, based on its pronotum with a median longitudinal carina, a character that immediately excludes it from the current limits of Apanteles, but that occurs in several other genera of Microgastrinae. In his paper revising the fauna of the Caribbean islands of St. Vincent and Mequitazine chemical information Grenada, Ashmead (1900) treated five other genera of microgastrines: Microplitis, Protapanteles, Protomicroplitis, Urogaster and Pseudapanteles. The first three belong to completely different groups which can safely be excluded from the present analysis. Urogaster is no longer a valid genus (the majority of its species have been transferred to Apanteles). Pseudapanteles can also be excluded because its species have a median longitudinal groove on the first mediotergite, a trait not present in Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, according to the original description. After carefully considering the distribution of other genera in the region, and comparing it with other species descriptions from the same paper (Ashmead 1900), we believe that the best generic placement for this species is Rhygoplitis. It is worth mentioning that Ashmead (1900: 291) described two other species, Urogaster aciculatus and Pseudapanteles sancti-vincentis, which are now considered to be the same and to belong to Rhygoplitis; the valid species name currently is Rhygoplitis aciculatus. It is possible that Apanteles sanctivincenti is yet an.Dops scutellaris (Muesebeck). Papp 1988: 150. Apanteles scutellaris Muesebeck. Austin and Dangerfield 1992: 9; Whitfield 1995: 247; van Achterberg 2003: 29. Remarks. After examining the holotype (NMNH), we consider this species as belonging to Illidops, as pointed out a quarter of a century ago by Papp (1988). Papp transferred the species from Apanteles to Illidops in his treatment of the European fauna, when he adopted the then recent reclassification of Microgastrinae by Mason (1981). Strangely, his action was overlooked, ignored or rejected by the taxonomic community, and even authors following the Mason system of genera (e.g., Austin and Dangerfield 1992, Whitfield 1995) did not treat the species as Illidops but kept it as Apanteles. Van Achterberg (2003) considered Illidops as a subgenus of Apanteles, and transferred all of the European species, including I. scutellaris, back to Apanteles. All of the character defining Illidops (as outlined in the above section “Definition of the genus Apanteles sensu stricto”) are present in I. scutellaris, and thus we here transfer the species Apanteles scutellaris back to Illidops.Jose L. Fernandez-Triana et al. / ZooKeys 383: 1?65 (2014)5. Rhygoplitis sanctivincenti (Ashmead, 1900), comb. n. Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, 1900: 279. (Saint Vincent). Remarks. The species Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, 1900 was described from a single male, but the type has never been found in the BMNH and is probably lost (Gavin Broad, personal communication). Thus, later researchers reviewing the genus (Muesebeck 1921, Nixon 1965) or cataloguing it (Sz ligeti 1904, Shenefelt 1972) were unable to study it, and could only rely upon the very poor original description and key from Ashmead (1900: 279?80). Those five papers are the only publications citing the name Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, and the species has been considered as belonging to Apanteles since its original description. However, after Mason’s (1981) paper splitting Apanteles into several genera, it is evident that A. sanctivincenti Ashmead belongs to a different genus, based on its pronotum with a median longitudinal carina, a character that immediately excludes it from the current limits of Apanteles, but that occurs in several other genera of Microgastrinae. In his paper revising the fauna of the Caribbean islands of St. Vincent and Grenada, Ashmead (1900) treated five other genera of microgastrines: Microplitis, Protapanteles, Protomicroplitis, Urogaster and Pseudapanteles. The first three belong to completely different groups which can safely be excluded from the present analysis. Urogaster is no longer a valid genus (the majority of its species have been transferred to Apanteles). Pseudapanteles can also be excluded because its species have a median longitudinal groove on the first mediotergite, a trait not present in Apanteles sanctivincenti Ashmead, according to the original description. After carefully considering the distribution of other genera in the region, and comparing it with other species descriptions from the same paper (Ashmead 1900), we believe that the best generic placement for this species is Rhygoplitis. It is worth mentioning that Ashmead (1900: 291) described two other species, Urogaster aciculatus and Pseudapanteles sancti-vincentis, which are now considered to be the same and to belong to Rhygoplitis; the valid species name currently is Rhygoplitis aciculatus. It is possible that Apanteles sanctivincenti is yet an.
