Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 80. (Budapest 1988)

Papp, J.: A survey of the European species of Apanteles Först. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae) XI. "Homologization" of the species-group of Apanteles s. l. with Mason's generic taxa. Checklist of genera. Parasitoid host list 1

In the compilation of the hosts of the European or western Palaearctic species of Apanteles s. 1. I relied on SHENEFELT'S catalogue (loc. cit.). While making the notes I convinced myself of the all-embracing completeness of SHENEFELT'S catalogue, as there are but few omissions. Notwithstanding there are considerable differences between SHENEFELT'S and my parasitoid / host list, the viewpoints of my version are formulated in the following items: 1. Within the genera the parasitoid (or Apanteles s. 1.) species-names are grouped in alphabetical order to facilitate their retrieval. On the contrary, the generic names are arranged systematically in the following sequence: Dolichogenidea VIERECK, Pholetesor MASON, Apanteles FÖRSTER, lllidops MASON, Iconella MASON, Choeras MASON, Sat hon MASON, Distatrix MASON, Glyptapanteles ASHMEAD, Protapanteles ASHMEAD, Cotesia CAMERON and Deuterixys MASON. 2. Owing to the well-known fact that the species of Apanteles s. 1. are predominantly parasitoids of lepidopterous caterpillars, the first order from among the insects is the Lepidoptera, succeeded according to their importance by the orders Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Heteroptera and Neuroptera. 3. Within each order of the hosts the families are arranged in systematic sequence. Recurrently, to promote their easy and quick retrieval, the generic as well as the species names of the hosts are enumerated alphabetically. 4. I experienced that, mainly in the cases of the lepidopterous and dipterous species names, they were listed without critique and very frequently under their synonymous names too in the catalogue-part of the genus Apanteles s. 1. It is well-known that recently a vast number of lepidopterous and dipterous names have been changed in the taxonomic nomenclature. Especially the lepidopterous nomenclature seems to be chaotic for the entomologists not familiar with this subject. This is the reason why I had to set up a card-file catalogue with a cross-reference of the valid and synonymous names. In this way it seemed to be promising to free even the most recent literature of Apanteles s. 1. from the awkward ballast of synonyms and incorrect names. In my taxonomic labour the following colleagues were helpful (their field of speciality in brackets) : f BR. B. AMBRUS (Diptera), DR. E. ÁCS (Lepidoptera), f DR. S. ENDRŐDI (Coleoptera), DR. L. GOZMÁNY (Lepidoptera), DR. F. MIHÁLYI (Diptera), DR. L. RONKAY (Lepidoptera), |DR. G. SZELÉNYI (Hymenoptera), J. Szőcs (Lepidoptera) and DR. A. VOJNITS (Lepidoptera). All these persons are sincerely thanked for their kind assistance in promoting my own work. 5. Concerning the list of the host-species, my critical consideration is twofold: a) In the printed text the host-species names which were authenticated or confirmed as real host of the respective Apanteles s. 1. species by recognized specialists of our modern age as D. S. WILKINSON, G. E. J. NIXON and V. I. TOBIAS, and furthermore by me, are given in italics

. b) For those host-families which are doubtful or uncertain to belong to the range of the hosts of the respective Apanteles s. 1. species, they are indicated before the taxon names with a question-mark (?). Double question-marks (??) are given before the family if it proved to be disqualified from the range of hosts of the respective Apanteles s. 1. species. 6. It seems noteworthy to remark here that the formulation of the parasitoid / host list of the Apanteles s. 1. species under such concept (expounded in items 1-5) is the first such an attempt in the braconid literature.