Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 51. (Budapest 1959)

Papp, J.: The Microgaster Latr., Microplitis Först., and Hygroplitis Thoms. species of the Carpathian Basin (Hymenoptera, Braconidae)

with four Microgaster and two Apanteles species at the same time. Following Nixon, I regard it as a well separable Microgaster species. Microgaster calceata Hal. This species is not to be found in the Collection of the Natural History Museum. I had no occasion to examine the specimens collected by Győrfi around Gödöllő. By the way, he lists it (1941 : 92) as M. pubescens Ratz., of. which T e 1 e n g a (1955 : 185) shew that it is a synonym of M. calceata Hal. Microgaster tibialis Nees 1. Specimens collected in Hungary and the adjacent areas rather resemble M. tibialis var. luctuosa Hal. The \ ariability of the species is indicated by the circumstance that, up to now, there were described four varieties : M. t. var. vulgaris Ruthe, M. t. var. ambigua Ruthe, M. t. var. maculata Ruthe, M. t. var. luctuosa Hal. ; all described originally as distinct species. Of the species based merely on color deviations, it was found that they could be but variaties of M. tibialis Nees, so that Szépligeti (1904 : 113), then Fahringer (1937 : 364—366) list them as varieties. As I did not dispose of a suitable amount of specimens, I give herewith the forms observed, desisting from any taxonomical valuation and nominal designation : a. Tergite 3. is more or less punctate ; b. Cubitus 2. somewhat quadrangular ; c. Center of tergite 2. not roughly rugose ; d. Center of face slightly rugulose ; e. Joints 2. — 5. of maxillary palpus yellow. 2. S z é p 1 i g e t i, in his world catalogue (1904:113), enumerates three Microgaster tibialis species from Region I, as follows : „64. M. tibialis Curtis, Brit. Ent. Vol. 7. p. 321, 9 rf (1830) (Britannia). 65. M. tibialis Brullé, Exp. Sc. Mor. Zool. Vol. 2, p. 386, 9 (1832) (Graecia). 66. M. tibialis Nees, Hym. lehn. aff. Mon. Vol. 1, p. 168, 9 rf (1834) (Europe fere tota)." Pursuantly, he synonymizes, without any explanation whatever, the species M. meridiana Hal. with M. tibialis Nees, listing, at the same time, the above mentioned varieties of M. tibialis Nees as varieties, in the meantime, he remains in debt for the interpretation of the Microgaster tibialis species described by Curtis and Brullé. Fahringer (1937 : 259) publishes M. tibialis Curtis among the dubious species within the genus Apanteles, regarding M. tibialis Brullé also as an uncertain taxon, giving it, however, a new name ; M. pseudotibialis m. (p. 372). On the other hand, Telenga does not even mention these species in his book. 3. According to the concordant views of H e 11 én (1954 : 109), Telenga (1955 : 201), and Nixon (letter communication), Microgaster messoria Hal. is synonymous with M. tibialis Nees. This species was published by Győrfi. (1941 : 92, 1953 : 302) from Jászberény, Pótharaszt-puszta and Bátorliget; these data must therefore be related to M. tibialis Nees, in accordance with the above considerations. 4. G y ő r f i's identifications concerning Microgaster crassicornis Ruthe and M. stictica Ruthe (1941 : 92, 1953 : 302) are erroneous ; both are M. tibialis Nees.