S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 62. (Budapest, 2001)

FOLIA ENTOMOLOGICA HUNGARICA ROVARTANI KÖZLEMÉNYEK LXII 2001 pp. 95-114 Revisional list of the Hungarian Nematinae with the description of three new species (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) A. Haris Revisional list of the Hungarian Nematinae with the description of three new species (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) — The revisional list of the Hungarian Nematinae fauna is given. Three new species are described: Nematus flavominutissimus sp. n.; Pachynematus hungaricus sp. n.; Mesoneura nigrostigmata sp. n. and compared to Nematus fuscomaculatus Förster, 1854; Pachynematus declinatus (Förster, 1854) and Mesoneura lanigera Benson, 1954. Status of 100 species is confirmed, 16 species arc new records for the Hungarian fauna, 13 species are deleted. Key words: Nematinae, Hungary, new species, revisional list. The first checklist on the Hungarian Nematinae fauna was published by Mocsáry (1900). Since this time, two major factors influenced the Hungarian fauna. One is the loss of territories of Hungary after the 1st world war. The other factor is an increasing number of papers on our sawfly fauna. The present paper studies the sawfly subfamily Nematinae. Only the fauna of Hungary is listed. I had no possibility to check the identification of the specimens that are deposited in different Slovak and Romanian collections. There is not much sense in taking over data from the literature since many misidentifications occur in this group. MATERIAL AND METHODS The Hungarian collections (Budapest, Zirc and Kaposvár) are re-identified. Under each species the valid name is written in bold, if the Hungarian faunistic literature discusses it under a different name, this name is written in italics. Most of the entries are divided into two parts separated by a dash-rule. In the first part, the published data are discussed: the collecting locality the number and sexes of the collected specimens, the time of the capture, the result of re-identification and finally the cited paper. The result of the re-identification (written in italics) might be the same as it was published, in this case I do not use any remark or if they are different, I give the revised name of the dis-