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)

evidence that these taxa are exceedingly varying and the views of the three above research workers, with reference to synonymy, are indeed well founded. With regard to the home species, already Szépligeti observed their variability. He denoted color and sculpture forms as „Variatio 1, 2, 3 . . .", nevertheless he did not relegate them to taxonomical categories. Fahringer (1937), too, described some forms, but he was not consistent whether to assign them to taxonomical categories or not. From my part, I also describe, in the case of numerous species, forms grouped under distinct headings, disregarding, however, any taxonomical evaluation in the lack of any considerable material originating also from outside of the confines of the area under discussion. Both Szépligeti and Fahringer (as ako several other authors) primarily distinguish color-varieties. The fact is, however, that, according to my observations, changes in coloration are often concurrent with variations in sculpture. I succeeded to show some of them. The variability in color of some parts of the body is proved by the very fact that, in the past century, numerous authors (e. g. Thomson, R a t z e b u r g) described new species based solely on color deviations. We know of cases wherein the color variations of two (or more) species exhibit a kind of transition among each other. There are species like these especially in the genus Microplitis, and, consequently, this is the genus which contains the highest number of dubious species, indeed, of definitely synonymized ones. Authors generally desist from synonymization, as they do not posess type specimens. Acting by such considerations, I synonymize several species conditionally only. Aside of the new species, I do not characterize detailedly any one of them. With regard, however, to some few species, I cannot do but find it absolutely necessary to expound on its taxonomical position or to enumerate its features liable to vary. In this latter alternative, one has to take into consideration T e 1 e n g a's (1955) or F a h r i n g e r's (1937) characterization of the species under discussion. Key to genera 1 (2) Mesopleura without groove (sternauli) ; or, if there is one, it is never deep and ribbed. Punctation of body is never as rough as scrobiculation of genera Microplitis and Hygroplitis 1. Microgaster Latr. 2 (1) Groove always present on mesopleura. This deep and ribbed on Microplitis species. 3 (4) Spur of tibia 3. short, as long as one-third of basal joint of tarsus. Second tergite generally as long as all other tergites 2. Microplitis Forst. 4 (3) Spur of tibia 3. long, at least as long as one-halfth of basal joint of tarsus. Tergites 1. and 2. always longer than all others 3. Hygroplitis Thorns. Microgaster Latr., 1802 According to Fahringer (1937), the genus Microgaster has 58 species in the Palearcticum. Of these, he lists 12 species as „Arten die nicht mit Sicherheit als hieher gehörig zu deuten sind". Of the remaining 46 species, twenty species were collected in the Carpathian Basin hitherto, and 4 other ones are new to science. Of the 20 species collected, T e 1 e n g a (1955) established that