S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 27/2. (Budapest, 1974)
aetiology of others is next to none (e.g. Blacus , Triaspiinae , Agathiinae ) . In many cases reared Braconidae have been misidentified, thus literature is further charged with grave errors. According to STEPHENS (1829), Braconidae can be distinguished from other relating families by the following characteristics: 2nd recurrent vein missing and neither is there a discocubital cell, the 2nd and 3rd abdominal tergites fused (immovable with respect to each other). In the temperate zone their majority is between 3 and 5 mm, well below the size of the Ichneumonidae (6-15 mm). A history of the classification After C. WESMAEL (1835-1838) it has been customary to divide Braconidae into five distinct groups. These are as follows: 1. Cyclostomi: clypeus hemispherically concave, thus between the face and the mandibles a round hollow is perceiveable. 2. Cryptogastres: abdominal segments fused to various degrees. 3. Areolari: the 2nd cubital cell (Cu2) is very small compared to the 1st one (Cui). 4. Exodonti: both mandibles bear 2-3-4 teeth, which are not covered by one another even in repose but are rather directed outward. 5. Polymorphi: the representatives of all the families not included in the previous four groups come under this heading. This system of some 150 years standing prevailed though it has been based only on the most conspicuous morphological characters. In the time of WESMAEL it was the most modern of systems. The paramount significance of LINNÉ's system could clearly be felt also on the classification of Braconidae given by WESMAEL. And this system has not changed significantly in the time passed. Although such eminent specialists cultivated this group like FÖRSTER (1862), MARSHALL (1888-1896), ASHMEAD (1900) and SZÉPLIGETI (1904). Each of them endeavoured to elaborate an internal system of the individual groups rather than to be concerned with the establishment of a new system of Braconidae . True enough phylogenetics was gaining the day in systernaties still Braconidae were waiting for specialists who would work out their system based on relations. Perhaps the material was yet inadequate and scanty to serve as basis that time . FÖRSTER, MARSHALL, ASHMEAD and SZÉPLIGETI have all a.dded a vast quantity of knowledge to Braconidae still they cannot be called phylogeneticists . Knowing a huge number of species they could unequivocally distinguish and describe the various higher taxa. Especially FÖRSTER and ASHMEAD were those who erected many new genera. The German A. FÖRSTER (1862) based his new genera on the knowledge of European species. For quite some time it was believed that far too many genera have been erected. He frequently based his genera on characters which even today would qualify to be of specific value only. But it must be admitted that he had had an excellent eye as an expert, although he had no stereomicroscope at his disposal only a hand magnifying glass. It was inevitable to split up the very heterogeneous genera (e . g . n B_racon n , " Rhogas" , " Microgaster ", Alysia" , " Chelonus" , " Meteorus ") into at least some big morphological units. His work was imbued with the saying "Ordnung machen ins Chaos" and he finished it precisely. He was ahead of his contemporaries that is why many criti-
