Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 57. (Budapest 1965)

Móczár, L.: Remarks of some types of Drynini and Gonatopodini (Hymenoptera)

Fig. 27 — 32. Haplogonatopus bifarius. (KIEFFER), 27: mandible,

28: fore femur, 29: fore tibia, 30: tarsal 1—4, 31: chela, 32: mouth parts tooth and enlarged claw). The description of Haplogonatopus fits the single species G. bifarius representing Trigonatopus, therefore I propose to sink it into synonymy with Haplogonatopus. Haplogonatopus bifarius (KIEFFER) Gonatopus bifarius KIEFFER, 1906, Spec. Hym., 9, p. 502 $ Pachygonatopus (Platygonatopus) bifarius: 1907, KIEFFER, Gen. Insect., 5-4, p. 19 Trigonatopus bifarius: 1914, KIEFFER, Das Tierreich, 41, p. 72 Trigonatopus bifarius 1928, BERLAND, Faune de France, 19, p. 145 Trigonatopus bifarius: 1939, RICHARDS, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond., 89, p. 196 According to the original description: „Patrie. Corse (MARSHALL). Le type de cette espèce se trouve dans la collection de MARSHALL et porte le nom de bicolor HAL. (nigriventris NÉES)". The data of the specimen found in Coll. Hung. Nat. Hist. Mus. are as follows: „bicolor H. var. Coll. MARSHALL" in KIEFFER'S writing, „Britannia Coll. MARSHALL" (printed label), „G. bicolor var." in MARSHALL'S writing, „230", „G-8—60", „Trigonatopus

bifarius K. typ." in BIRÓ'S writing (red label). Although there is no label with the locality „Corse", on the other hand, the label „Britannia" was put on probably by a mistake, — such errors by KIEFFER were ascertained on other occasions, — on basis of the other data („bicolor" . . .) it seems very probable that this specimen represents the original material and can therefore be regarded as the holotype. KIEFFER'S diagnosis (1906 p. 501, 1914 p. 72) is to be corrected as: „Thorax . . ., I

er neud ... à impression transversale en avant" really smooth without impression. „Partie déclive à stries transversales à peine perceptibles, indistinctes" incorrect, because posterior part of propodeum with distinct wrinkles. (1906 p. 501) : „branche externe de la pince non dentée à l'extrémité" incorrect, enlarged claw with a characteristical preapical tooth immediately near top (Fig. 31). „Taille 9 '• 3 mm" correctly 3.5 mm. In KIEFFER (1914 p. 72) : „5. (Tarsenglied) dem 3. gleich" correctly : segment 5 as long as metatarsus -f- segment 2 together, it is not right to separate the base and