identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
C3635F69FFCA980AFDA0F9A6FB76F90B.text	C3635F69FFCA980AFDA0F9A6FB76F90B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson 1858)	<div><p>Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858)</p><p>Figs 2–4</p><p>Calliceras abdominalis Thomson, 1858: 303, ♂, ♀. MZLU.</p><p>Ceraphron pallidiventris Ashmead, 1893: 124, 126, ♀. Keyed. Type missing (Masner &amp; Muesebeck 1968). Synonymized by Dessart (1996).</p><p>Ceraphron Cameroni Kieffer, 1907b: 230, ♀. BMNH. Synonymized by Dessart (1996).</p><p>Ceraphron Microneurus Kieffer, 1907b: 238, ♂. MCSN. Synonymized by Dessart (1965). Preoccupied by Aphanogmus Microneurus Kieffer (1907b) .</p><p>Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913b: 197, ♂. NHMUK, MNHN. Keyed.</p><p>Calliceras clavata violae Novitzky, 1954: 54, ♂, ♀. NHMW. Synonymized by Dessart (1996).</p><p>Ceraphron abdominalis – Marshall 1873: 2. Generic transfer. –– Kieffer 1907b: 230, 240. Description. –– Petersen 1956: 117. Variation, type information. –– Dessart 1972c: 35. Discussion of Zangheri (1969).</p><p>Ceraphron pallidiventris – Brues 1906: 146. Keyed; 1916: 560. Description, keyed. –– Masner &amp; Muesebeck 1968: 107. Type information. –– Dessart 1996: 286. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858).</p><p>Calliceras myrmecophila – Kieffer 1914b: 77, 100. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Calliceras abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 76, 77. Keyed. –– Szelényi 1939: 87. Description.</p><p>Calliceras abdominalis abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 95. Description.</p><p>Calliceras cameroni – Kieffer 1914c: 76, 95. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Calliceras microneura – Kieffer 1914c: 77, 98. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Calliceras pallidiventris – Kieffer 1914c: 79, 110. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron myrmecophilus – Kelner-Pillault 1958: 149. Type information. –– Masner 1965: 12. Type information.</p><p>Aphanogmus abdominalis – Dessart 1964: 121. Generic transfer, description, lectotype designation; 1965: 170. Description. –– Hellén 1966: 30, 32. Description, keyed. –– Alekseev &amp; Kozlov in Alekseev 1978: 682. Description.</p><p>Ceraphron microneurus – Dessart 1965: 170, 171. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) .</p><p>Ceraphron cameroni – Masner 1965: 11. Type information. –– Dessart 1996: 286. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) .</p><p>Calliceras clavata violae – Dessart 1996: 287. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) .</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Syntype UNITED KINGDOM • ♂; “ Moeurs et patrie. Angleterre: Londres, myrmecophile (H. Donisthorpe)” (Kieffer 1913a: 197); MNHN EY22475, EY22463 to EY22465 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Nearctic and palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>CT found one male specimen marked as the holotype of Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913 in the MNHN collections. However, there is also a male specimen marked as the holotype of this species at the NHMUK (NHMUK010812101), as well as an additional female specimen (NHMUK010812106) marked as an allotype. Concerning the female specimen, Kieffer only described the male of the species (1913a) and an allotype has never been published. Though it is not a part of Kieffer’s syntype series, it is worth noting that the female was captured by the same collector in the same month and year as the two males, and mounted in the same way.</p><p>Both the male NHMUK and MNHN specimens were originally card-mounted (Dessart removed the MNHN specimen from its mount when he dissected it), with collection information written on the front or back of the card mounts. Both specimens were collected at Nethy Bridge from Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 . Based on the similar handwriting and mountings, it appears that both specimens were collected by H. Donisthorpe, though only the NHMUK specimen bears a label with Donisthorpe’s name. The MNHN specimen was collected on “ 14.vi.12 ”, whereas the NHMUK specimen was collected on “ 12.VI.12 ” (the female specimen was captured on “ 23.VI.12 ”).</p><p>The original locality information given in Kieffer (1913a) (written in French) is “ Angleterre: Londres, myrmecophile (H. Donisthorpe)”, which does not match either male specimen. However, Kieffer (1914c) (written in German) re-describes the species and gives the locality information as “Mit Formica rufa L., im Juni. England (Nethy Bridge)”. Kieffer has been known to make mistakes in correctly reporting specimen localities, especially when the handwriting of the collector was poor (see Notton 2014). It appears that Kieffer made a mistake in his 1913a publication, which he corrected in his 1914c paper (although Nethy Bridge is actually located in Scotland, not England).</p><p>Dessart dissected the card-mounted specimen at the MNHN (MNHN EY22475) and made three slide preparations (prép. no. 6605-181) of an anterior and posterior wing (MNHN EY22463), the male genitalia and metasoma (MNHN EY22464), and the right antenna and the left mid- and hind legs (MNHN EY22465). Although Dessart examined the specimens at both the MNHN and the NHMUK, it does not appear that he ever declared a lectotype or published anything on this species (Johnson &amp; Musetti 2004). However, Dessart did leave a label on the female at the NHMUK which reads “ Not allotype since only ♂ described… but ♂ and ♀ = APH. crassiceps (K)”.</p><p>At this time, we consider the two male specimens at the NHMUK and the MNHN as syntypes, not holotypes. However, we synonymize Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913 syn. nov. with Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) based on the male genitalia morphology, body shape and especially the presence of foveae on the median length of the mesoscutellum (Mikó 2012a, 2012b; Mikó et al. 2013). It is possible that this species may also be synonymous with Aphanogmus crassiceps Kieffer, 1907, as Dessart believed, but we leave this to future researchers to investigate.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFCA980AFDA0F9A6FB76F90B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFC6980DFD93F915FE06FBAE.text	C3635F69FFC6980DFD93F915FE06FBAE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson	<div><p>Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858</p><p>Fig. 5</p><p>Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858: 305, ♂, ♀. NHRS.</p><p>Aphanogmus hyalinipennis Thomson, 1858: 305, ♀. NHRS. Synonymized by Dessart (1963a).</p><p>Aphanogmus laevis Förster, 1861: 40, ♀. Synonymized by Szelényi (1940).</p><p>Aphanogmus grenadensis Ashmead, 1896: 789, ♀. NHMUK. Keyed. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Aphanogmus formicarius Kieffer, 1905: 6, ♀. NHME. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Aphanogmus Clavatus Kieffer, 1907b: 204, ♀. Type not found in MCSN (Dessart 1975). Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Ceraphron Armatus Kieffer, 1907b: 215, ♀. NHMUK. Preoccupied by Ceraphron armatus Say, 1836 . Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Ceraphron Formicarum Kieffer, 1907b: 231, ♀. NHMUK. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Ceraphron Frenalis Kieffer, 1907b: 226, ♀. MCSN. Synonymized by Szelényi, in Russo (1938).</p><p>Ceraphron oriphilus Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 12, ♀. MNHN. Keyed. Synonymized by Dessart (1966a).</p><p>Ceraphron fuliginosi Box, 1921: 15 . NHMUK. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Calliceras fasciata Fouts, 1924: 162, ♀. LACM. Preoccupied by Ceraphron fasciatus Meunier, 1917 . Synonymized by Dessart (1981b).</p><p>Calliceras boreale Whittaker, 1930: 71, ♀. NHMUK. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Allomicrops bemisiae Ghesquière, 1935: 59, ♀. MRAC. Synonymized by Dessart (1963b).</p><p>Ceraphron roberti Dessart, 1979a: 239 . Replacement name for Calliceras fasciata Fouts, 1924 .</p><p>Ceraphron hyalinipennis – Marshall 1873: 3. Generic transfer.</p><p>Aphanogmus laevis – Dalla Torre 1885: 75. Reprint of Förster (1861). –– Kieffer 1914c: 116, 120. Description, keyed. –– Szelényi 1940: 126. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Aphanogmus levis – Dalla Torre 1898: 523. Emendation. –– Kieffer 1907b: 205. Description.</p><p>Ceraphron fumipennis – Dalla Torre 1898: 525. Generic transfer.</p><p>Aphanogmus Hyalinipennis – Kieffer 1907b: 203. Description.</p><p>Aphanogmus Fumipennis – Kieffer 1907b: 203, 204. Description.</p><p>Aphanogmus Formicarius – Kieffer 1907b: 204. Description.</p><p>Aphanogmus formicarius – Kieffer 1914c: 116, 120. Description, keyed. –– Kieffer 1914c: 115, 117. Generic transfer, description, keyed. –– Szelényi 1940: 125. Keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 24, 25, 26. Type information, junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Aphanogmus fumipennis – Kieffer 1914c: 116, 121. Description, keyed. –– Russo 1938: 362. Description. –– Szelényi 1940: 126. Keyed. –– Parr 1960: 126. Description, taxonomic status. –– Dessart 1963a: 391. Description, synonymy, lectotype designation; 1963b: 515. Description; 1965: 167. Synonymy; 1975: 25. Synonymy; 1981b: 12. Synonymy. –– Hellén 1966: 30, 33. Description, keyed. ––Alekseev &amp; Kozlov in Alekseev (1978): 686. Description.</p><p>Aphanogmus hyalinipennis – Kieffer 1914c: 116, 121. Description, keyed. –– Szelényi 1940: 126. Keyed. –– Dessart 1963a: 391, 395. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Aphanogmus clavatus – Kieffer 1914c: 116, 121. Description, keyed. –– Szelényi 1940: 125. Keyed. –– Hellén 1966: 31, 36. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 24, 26. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Aphanogmus grenadensis – Kieffer 1914c: 117, 124. Description, keyed. –– Masner 1965: 10. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 24, 25. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858; 1981b: 12. Lectotype designation.</p><p>Calliceras armata – Kieffer 1914c: 74, 89. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Calliceras frenalis – Kieffer 1914c: 76, 94. Generic transfer, description, keyed. –– Szelényi in Russo 1938: 362, 363. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Calliceras oriphila – Kieffer 1914c: 78, 103. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>? Calliceras clavatus – Szelényi 1940: 126. Keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron orphilus – Risbec 1950: 552. Keyed, spelling error.</p><p>Ceraphron borealis – Muesebeck &amp; Walkley 1951: 666. Generic transfer. –– Dessart, 1975: 25. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Ceraphron fasciatus – Muesebeck &amp; Walkley 1951: 667. Generic transfer.</p><p>Allomicrops bemisiae – Dessart 1963b: 515, 521. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Ceraphron frenalis – Dessart 1965: 167. Lectotype designation.</p><p>Aphanogmus formicarum – Masner 1965: 10. Type information.</p><p>Ceraphron armatus – Masner 1965: 11. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 24, 25. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Ceraphron borealis – Masner 1965: 11. Type information.</p><p>Ceraphron fuliginosi – Masner 1965: 12. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 25. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Ceraphron oriphilus – Dessart 1966a: 15, 17. Synonymy, emendation of description, junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Ceraphron formicarum – Dessart 1975: 25. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Calliceras fasciata – Dessart 1981b: 12. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Ceraphron roberti – Dessart 1981b: 12. Junior synonym of Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 .</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>KENYA • ♀ of Ceraphron oriphilus Kieffer, 1913, synonymized with Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858; “Maü escarpment, á Molo, station de l’Uganda railway, située prés du sommet de l’escarpement, dans la forêt, mais sur le versant oriental, altiitude de 2.420 m., 2 décembre 1911, st. no 19” (Kieffer 1913b: 12); MNHN EY22432 to EY22434, EY25361.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical, nearctic, neotropical, and palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>There is one female specimen stored in ethanol that Kieffer originally described as the type of Ceraphron oriphilus (1913b), but Dessart synonymized this species with Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 (1966a) . There are no locality labels with the specimen, though there is a determination label from Kieffer indicating “ Type 19”. Dessart dissected the specimen and made three slide preparations (prép. no. 6505/182) of the left posterior leg (MNHN EY22432), both fore wings and one hind wing (MNHN EY22433), and one antenna (MNHN EY22434). The rest of the specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25361).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFC6980DFD93F915FE06FBAE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFC19810FD87FB71FA9CFB05.text	C3635F69FFC19810FD87FB71FA9CFB05.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aphanogmus origenus (Kieffer 1913)	<div><p>Aphanogmus origenus (Kieffer, 1913)</p><p>Figs 6–7</p><p>Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 12, ♂, ♀. MNHN. Keyed.</p><p>Calliceras origena – Kieffer, 1914c: 78, 102. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron origenus – Risbec 1950: 552. Keyed.</p><p>Aphanogmus origenus – Dessart 1966a: 10. Generic transfer, description, lectotype designation.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Lectotype</p><p>TANZANIA • ♀ of Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913, new combination Aphanogmus origenus in Dessart (1966a); “ Mont Kilimandjaro: lisiére supérieure de la forêt auprés du Bismarckhügel, entre 2.700 et 2.800 m. d’altitude, 2 avril 1912 (st. no 71)” (Kieffer 1913b: 12); MNHN EY22436, EY22437, EY25358.</p><p>Paralectotypes</p><p>TANZANIA: 2 ♀♀; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY25352 • 1 ♂, 1 ♀, syntypes of Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913, identified as Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY22435, EY25350 • 1 ♀; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY25357 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>This species was originally described as Ceraphron origenus by Kieffer (1913b) from a series of male and female specimens. According to Dessart (1966a), the original syntypic series consisted of five females and one male. However, upon reviewing the specimens himself, Dessart found that the six specimens actually belonged to three different Aphanogmus species (Dessart 1966a).</p><p>Dessart identified the male and one female specimen as Aphanogmus fumipennis based on antennal characters and the male genitalia (Fig. 6). He made a slide preparation (prép. no. 6505/06) of the male metasoma and genitalia (MNHN EY22435), and appears to have left the remaining bleached fragments of the male in an ethanol vial with the female specimen (MNHN EY25350).</p><p>In looking at the other syntypes, Dessart found that three of the remaining females belonged to the same species (Fig. 7 A–B). Rather than synonymize Ceraphron origenus with Aphanogmus fumipennis, he chose a lectotype and paratypes from these three females to represent a new combination, Aphanogmus origenus, then re-described the species and noted that the male is unknown (Dessart 1966a). He dissected the female lectotype and made two slide preparations (prép. no. 6504/261), with one slide containing the left antenna (MNHN EY22436), and the other containing the left fore wing and hind wing (MNHN EY22437). The rest of the female lectotype is stored in an ethanol vial (MNHN EY25358). Two female paralectotypes are stored together in another ethanol vial (MNHN EY25352). These two specimens were not imaged.</p><p>The state of the last female paralectotype remains uncertain (Fig. 7C). Dessart (1966a: 11) provided the following comments: “également dépourvue de rebord périphérique au scutellum mais à antennes non massuées, représente sans doute une nouvelle espèce malheureusement en trop mauvais état pour être bien décrite”. Dessart determined that the specimen was an Aphanogmus and not a Ceraphron, and based on differences in the antenna and scutellum, thought that the specimen could represent a new species. However, he thought the specimen’s condition was too poor to describe a new species from. The specimen currently remains in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25357).</p><p>None of the specimens have locality labels, though Dessart’s labels for ethanol specimens MNHN EY25358 and MNHN EY25350 quote a determination label from Kieffer that indicate “ Type 71”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFC19810FD87FB71FA9CFB05	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFDC9812FDF4FB17FC69FC75.text	C3635F69FFDC9812FDF4FB17FC69FC75.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aphanogmus radialis Kieffer 1907	<div><p>Aphanogmus radialis Kieffer, 1907</p><p>Fig. 8</p><p>Aphanogmus Fasciipennis var. radialis Kieffer, 1907b: 199, ♀. MNHN.</p><p>Aphanogmus radialis Kieffer, 1914c: 116, 118. Description, change to species status, keyed. — Szelényi 1940: 125. Keyed.</p><p>Aphanogmus fasciipennis var. radialis – Kelner-Pillault 1958: 149. Type information.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>FRANCE • ♀; “Bitche, en octobre” (Kieffer, 1907b: 199); MNHN EY25347, EY22466, EY22467.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Thomson (1858: 305) described the species Aphanogmus fasciipennis from male and female specimens from Lund, and described a female variation from the same locality that differed in the following regard: “antennarum basi pedibusque testaceis, abdomine. piceo.”. Kieffer (1907b: 199) keyed out the species and also described a female variation of his own with different coloration and antennal characters, collected from “Bitche, en octobre”, which he named radialis .</p><p>It is unclear whether the female variations described by Thomson and Kieffer are the same; though Kieffer’s variation was collected from a different locality than Thomson’s, it is described in a similar way, with a lighter coloration on the antenna, legs and abdomen. Kieffer (1914c) later changed his variation to species status. Kelner-Pillault (1958) reported a female found in Kieffer’s collection in Bitche, which was considered a holotype and donated to the MNHN.</p><p>Dessart (1963a) redescribed Aphanogmus fasciipennis and briefly discussed the variation Thomson had described. However, the only specimen of the variation Dessart had viewed for this publication was missing from the mount except for a few tarsi, so he was unable to determine if it was actually a different species or not. Dessart did not view the holotype female specimen at the MNHN until 1966, according to the label he placed on the specimen. Dessart dissected the female specimen and made two slide mounts (prép. no. 6605/252), leaving the rest of the specimen on its point mount (MNHN EY25347). One slide contains the anterior left wing and posterior right wing (MNHN EY22466), while the other has the complete left antenna and fragments of the right antenna (MNHN EY22467).</p><p>Though Dessart (1966a) discusses several of the MNHN specimens, this specimen is not one of them. It appears that Dessart dissected the specimen in 1966 but then left it out of the final publication. According to Johnson &amp; Musetti (2004), Dessart never published any further papers discussing Aphanogmus fasciipennis or A. radialis . He did add a label to the holotype female at the MNHN commenting “=A. fasc. f. typique!”, but he never officially synonymized it with Aphanogmus fasciipennis Thomson, 1858 (Johnson &amp; Musetti 2004). While the original specimen bears a holotype label, Dessart did not add any holotype labels to his slide preparations: instead, he marked them with Kieffer’s original determination, Aphanogmus fasciipennis var. radialis .</p><p>Genus Ceraphron Jurine, 1807</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFDC9812FDF4FB17FC69FC75	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFDE9812FDE7FC20FDFFF8B2.text	C3635F69FFDE9812FDE7FC20FDFFF8B2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron alticola Kieffer 1913	<div><p>Ceraphron alticola Kieffer, 1913</p><p>Fig. 9</p><p>Ceraphron alticola Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 13, ♀. MNHN. Keyed.</p><p>Calliceras alticola – Kieffer 1914c: 78, 103. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron alticola – Risbec 1950: 552. Keyed. –– Dessart 1966a: 20. Description; 1989: 230. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Syntype</p><p>KENYA • ♀; “Maü escarpment, á Molo, altitude de 2.420 m., 2 décembre 1911, st. no 19” (Kieffer 1913b: 13); MNHN EY25359, EY22427, EY22428 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1913) described Ceraphron alticola from a female specimen or specimens, though this is the only type known for this species to date. At this point, we consider this specimen to be a syntype. There are no original locality or type labels with the specimen, though there is a note reading “ Ceraphron alticola || Type 19 K.”. The same type number appears on the label for Aphanogmus fumipennis (vial MNHN EY25361), originally the type of Kieffer’s Ceraphron oriphilus .</p><p>Dessart dissected this specimen in 1966 and made two microscope preparations (prép. no. 6505/183), one of the right antenna (MNHN EY22427) and one of the right forewing (MNHN EY22428). The specimens are circled in black to indicate their position on the slides. The rest of the female specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25359).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFDE9812FDE7FC20FDFFF8B2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFDF9815FDE2FA0BFAFFFDF7.text	C3635F69FFDF9815FDE2FA0BFAFFFDF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron barbieri Dessart 1975	<div><p>Ceraphron barbieri Dessart, 1975</p><p>Fig. 10</p><p>Ceraphron barbieri Dessart, 1975: 47, 50, ♂, ♀. ZMUC, ISNB, MNHN, MHNG. Keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron (Allomicrops) barbieri – Dessart 1981a: 3. Subgeneric assignment.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Allotype</p><p>FRANCE • ♀; “ Contre mur / dans la / maison, Dijon / 4–VIII–1973 / C. D’or. J. Barbier ” (Dessart 1975: 49); MNHN EY25349, EY22449.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Nearctic and palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Dessart described the species from three male and two female specimens. According to Dessart (1975), the male holotype and one male paratype are deposited at the Zoological Museum at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark (ZMUC), which was indicated in Johnson &amp; Musetti (2004). However, missing from Johnson &amp; Musetti (2004), there is another male paratype at the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium (ISNB), a female paratype in the Cl. Bésuchet collection in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland (MHNG), and a female allotype in the J. Barbier collection in the MNHN. The female allotype specimen is card mounted (MNHN EY25349), and there is one microscope preparation (prép. no. 7312/141) with the right antenna (MNHN EY22449).</p><p>There are a few errors and inconsistencies in the original publication. Dessart (1975) gives the identifier used for the allotype specimen as “N°7312/111”, but the actual number on both the specimens and the slides is N°7312/141. The label information given in the paper matches the specimen, although Dessart (1975: 49) reports an additional label saying “Contre mur / dans la / maison” which is missing from the actual specimen. Still, there is no doubt that this is the allotype specimen Dessart studied in describing Ceraphron barbieri .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFDF9815FDE2FA0BFAFFFDF7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFD99816FDFEFD99FC17FAFD.text	C3635F69FFD99816FDFEFD99FC17FAFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec 1950	<div><p>Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950</p><p>Fig. 11</p><p>Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950: 552, ♂. MNHN. Keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron cavifrons – Risbec 1955: 216. Keyed. –– Dessart 1989: 227. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>KENYA • ♂; “Forêt de L’Elgon, Versant Est. 2.700–2.800m., Mission de l’Omo, ARAMBOURG, CHAPPUIS, JEANNEL, 1932–1933.” (Risbec 1950: 552); MNHN EY22473.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Risbec (1950) described the species from a single male, and thought it could be related to C. oriphilus, C. naivashae or C. alticola, three species all described by Kieffer based on single female specimens. Risbec comments that Kieffer’s descriptions are not detailed enough to accurately match this male to any of the three females, suggesting that Risbec had not viewed those three Kieffer types at the time of the 1950 publication. The introduction to his key to African and Malagasy Ceraphronoidea (Risbec 1955) also omits C. oriphilus, C. naivashae and C. alticola due to his confusion with Kieffer’s original descriptions. Even though all three specimens were deposited at the MNHN, it appears that Risbec never viewed them.</p><p>Dessart did not dissect the male holotype or leave any labels on it indicating that he had viewed it, but he did include the species in a key to African Ceraphron species south of the Sahara, where he wrote that the male had been “insuffisamment décrit” and described a few additional characters (Dessart 1989: 227). Thus, we know that Dessart did view this specimen. Dessart (1989) distinguished this species from C. alticola and C. naivashae in this key and had also previously synonymized Ceraphron oriphilus with Aphanogmus fumipennis (Dessart 1966a), so it is not likely that this specimen is the male to any of Kieffer’s three female specimens, contrary to what Risbec (1950) thought.</p><p>The male holotype specimen (MNHN EY22473) is on a double point mount. The pin through the specimen made it difficult to image. The specimen is missing the last two flagellomeres from the right antenna. It was not possible to image the male genitalia, but the specimen appears to have harpe that are pointed and longer than the gonostipes, with distal tufts of setae.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFD99816FDFEFD99FC17FAFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFDA9818FDF0FAAFFDD8FDF7.text	C3635F69FFDA9818FDF0FAAFFDD8FDF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron crenulatus Kieffer 1913	<div><p>Ceraphron crenulatus Kieffer, 1913</p><p>Fig. 12</p><p>Ceraphron crenulatus Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 11, ♀. MNHN. Keyed.</p><p>Calliceras crenulata – Kieffer 1914c: 77, 101. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron crenulatus – Risbec 1950: 552. Keyed; 1955: 216. Keyed. –– Dessart 1966a: 6. Description; 1989: 224. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>KENYA • ♀; “Forêts inférieures du mont Kénya, près de la maison forestière, altitude de 2.400 m, 22 janvier 1912, st. no 39, tamisage de terreau d’arbres” (Kieffer 1913b: 11); MNHN EY25351, EY22438, EY22439.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1913b) only described the female of this species, naming it for its crenulate antennae. Dessart (1964: 120, comments) noted that the species is similar to Ceraphron xanthosoma, another species Kieffer described from Africa that also has crenulate antennae, “comme bon nombre d’autres espèces, d’ailleurs”, but that they differ in coloration and the shape of the antenna.</p><p>It was not until 1966 that Dessart re-described and illustrated the holotype female specimen of Ceraphron crenulatus . Dessart asserted that the species was easily recognizable by its reduced wing state, the shape of the head (especially the occipital and vertical keels), the ocellar depressions, and the reduced eye size (Dessart 1966a). He also noted that the reduced eyes and large apical antennal section are shared between this species and the palearctic species Ceraphron pristomicrops Dessart, 1965, which has no ocelli, even more reduced wings, and a broader metasomatic groove.</p><p>The specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25351), and does not have any locality labels associated with it, though it does bear determination labels from Dessart and Kieffer. Kieffer’s determination label reads “ Ceraphron crenulatus || type 39 K.”. Dessart made two slide preparations (prép. no. 6503/301), one of the right antennae (MNHN EY22438) and one of the anterior and posterior right wings (MNHN EY22439). Oddly, the preparation year given on the slides is 1965, while the label Dessart put on the ethanol specimen is from 1966.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFDA9818FDF0FAAFFDD8FDF7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFD4981AFDF7FD99FB7CFE18.text	C3635F69FFD4981AFDF7FD99FB7CFE18.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron naivashae Kieffer 1913	<div><p>Ceraphron naivashae Kieffer, 1913</p><p>Fig. 13</p><p>Ceraphron Naivashae Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 13, ♀. MNHN. Keyed.</p><p>Calliceras naivashae – Kieffer 1914c: 78, 103. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron naivashae – Risbec 1955: 552. Keyed. –– Dessart 1966a: 17, figs 22–24. Description, illustration; 1989: 233. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>KENYA • ♀; “AFRIQUE ORIENTALE ANGLAISE: fond du Rift Valley, a Naivasha, station de l’Uganda railway et chef-lieu de province, sur les bords du lac de Naivasha, altitude de 1.900 m., st. no 14, 1er decembre 1911.” (Kieffer 1913b: 13); MNHN EY25360, EY22429 to EY22431.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1913b) only described the female of this species, naming it for Naivasha, Africa, where it was collected. The female specimen at the MNHN is the only known specimen, which Dessart (1966a) considered as the holotype. Dessart (1966a) re-described the species from this female specimen and illustrated the wing and antennae.</p><p>Risbec (1950) proposed that Ceraphron cavifrons could be the male matching the female of C. naivashae (or C. oriphilus or C. alticola), while Risbec (1953b) suggested that Ceraphron soavinae could be the male matching this species. Dessart (1966a) comments on Risbec’s musings, saying that neither species seemed to match Ceraphron naivashae from their descriptions, though he had not viewed the type of either at that point. We know that Dessart later viewed C. cavifrons, providing diagnostic characters for the species and distinguishing it from C. naivashae in his key (Dessart 1989). Dessart never found the type of C. soavinae; however, he noted that Risbec (1953b) had described the species as a type of Ceraphron without a median mesoscutal furrow. Since Dessart knew of only one Ceraphron species from America with a partially absent median mesoscutal groove and no Ceraphron species where it was completely missing, he thought that either Risbec had made a mistake or that the species was actually an Aphanogmus (Dessart 1989: 216) . Dessart (1989) kept C. soavinae in his key, since he had not observed any specimens, but the key distinguishes it from C. naivashae, and it is highly unlikely that the male and female match.</p><p>Dessart dissected the specimen and made three preparations (prep. no. 6505/ I81) of the right antenna (MNHN EY22429), left antenna (MNHN EY22430) and left wing (MNHN EY22431). The rest of the specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25360). It is uncertain when Dessart dissected the specimen: the year given on the slides is 1965, while the year written on his determination label on the specimen in ethanol is 1966. The specimen in ethanol does not have any locality labels associated with it, though it does bear a determination label from Kieffer reading “ Ceraphron Naivashae K || type 14”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFD4981AFDF7FD99FB7CFE18	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFD6981AFD8EFDFCFCA0FA31.text	C3635F69FFD6981AFD8EFDFCFCA0FA31.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron nigrelliceps Kieffer 1907	<div><p>Ceraphron nigrelliceps Kieffer, 1907</p><p>Fig. 14</p><p>Ceraphron Nigrelliceps Kieffer, 1907b: 247, ♀. NHMUK, MNHN.</p><p>Calliceras nigrelliceps – Kieffer 1914c: 72, 82. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron nigrelliceps – Kelner-Pillault 1958: 149. Type information. –– Masner 1965: 13. Type information.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Syntype</p><p>FRANCE • ♀; “ Bitche ” (Kieffer 1907b: 247); MNHN EY22476 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1907b) only described the female of this species. The female specimen at the MNHN appears to have been collected at the university in Bitche where Kieffer used to teach, and subsequently donated to the MNHN (Kelner-Pillault 1958). The specimen (MNHN EY22476) is point mounted and in good condition.</p><p>Dessart left a label on the specimen in 1966 indicating that it is actually Ceraphron pedes Förster, 1861 but never officially synonymized it according to Johnson &amp; Musetti (2004). There is a second female specimen at the Natural History Museum in London (NHMUK010812034) that Dessart viewed in 1965 and also identified as Ceraphron pedes Förster, 1861 . It is unclear why Dessart never published this. Both the NHMUK and MNHN specimens were collected by P. Cameron and have determination labels from Kieffer, and are presumably syntypes. Dessart labeled the type at the NHMUK as a syntype, but the type at the MNHN still bears a holotype label.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFD6981AFD8EFDFCFCA0FA31	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFD6981DFDF2F9DBFC73F9A5.text	C3635F69FFD6981DFDF2F9DBFC73F9A5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron parvalatus Dessart 1966	<div><p>Ceraphron parvalatus Dessart, 1966</p><p>Fig. 15</p><p>Ceraphron apterus Kieffer, 1913b: 10, ♂, ♀. MNHN. Keyed. Preoccupied by Ceraphron apterus Zetterstedt, 1840 .</p><p>Ceraphron parvalatus Dessart, 1966a: 1, figs 1–5. Replacement name, description, lectotype, designation, illustration.</p><p>Calliceras aptera – Kieffer 1914c: 77, 101. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron apterus – Risbec 1950: 552. Keyed; 1955: 216. Keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron parvalatus – Dessart 1989: 225. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Lectotype</p><p>TANZANIA • ♀; “AFRIQUE ORIENTALE ALLEMANDE: mont Kilimandjaro: prairies alpines autour du Bismarckhugel, a la lisiere superieure de la foret sur le versant sud-est du Mawenzi, altitude de 2.740 m., st. no 70, 1” “ avril 1912 ” (Kieffer 1913b: 10); MNHN EY22443, EY25362.</p><p>Allolectotype</p><p>TANZANIA • ♂; same data as for lectotype; MNHN EY22440 to EY22442, EY25363 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Dessart (1966a) provides insight into the history of the naming of this species and the mistakes that abounded. Zetterstedt (1840) described a species called Ceraphron apterus, which Kieffer (1907a) transferred to the genus Conostigmus Dahlbom, 1858, even though Kieffer had himself described a species called Conostigmus apterus in the same work. Kieffer (1909) tried to rectify this mistake by renaming his Conostigmus apterus to Conostigmus apteryx . However, Kieffer (1913b) also described Ceraphron apterus, then referred to “ Conostigmus apterus Zetterstedt ” as “ Conostigmus apterus Kieffer” (Kieffer 1914c) . Dessart (1966a) set the record straight on these species and offered Ceraphron parvalatus as a nomen nuvum for Ceraphron apterus Kieffer. The new name fixes more than one mistake: Dessart (1966a) noted that the species is not actually apterous, as Kieffer described, but has reduced wings. It is for this reason that Dessart (1966a) chose the new name parvalatus, with the Latin word “parvus” meaning “small”.</p><p>Kieffer (1907a) described the male and female of the species, which Dessart (1966a) redescribed and illustrated, confirming that the male and female both belong to the same species. The male and female at the MNHN are the only known specimens, and are both considered as the syntypes that Kieffer observed. Dessart (1966a) designated the female as the lectotype and the male as the allolectotype, dissecting both and making slide preparations.</p><p>The female lectotype (prep. no. 6503/222) has a single slide preparation of one antenna (MNHN EY22443), with the rest of the specimen in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25362). The vial contains a determination label from Kieffer labeled with the number “Type 70”. The male allolectotype specimen (prep. no. 6503/221) has three slide preparations associated with it: the metasoma without the genitalia, in a poor preparation full of bubbles (MNHN EY22440); the male antenna in pieces, with three pieces marked in one black circle, and the last four flagellomeres in another circle (MNHN EY22441); and the right wing (MNHN EY22442). The original male specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25363), and has a determination label from Kieffer also labeled with “Type 70”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFD6981DFDF2F9DBFC73F9A5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFD1981EFDA0F8F7FDE8F805.text	C3635F69FFD1981EFDA0F8F7FDE8F805.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman 1832)	<div><p>Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832)</p><p>Fig. 16</p><p>Ceraphron abdominalis Boheman, 1832: 330, ♀.</p><p>Ceraphron tenuicornis Boheman, 1832: 332, ♂. Synonymized by Thomson (1858).</p><p>Conostigmus Abdominalis var. Testacea Kieffer, 1907a: 112, ♀. MZLU. Synonymized by Dessart (1972b). Conostigmus Divisifrons Kieffer, 1907a: 126, ♀. MNHN. Synonymized by Dessart (1972b).</p><p>Conostigmus Foveatifrons Kieffer, 1907a: 130, ♀. MCSN. Synonymized by Dessart (1972b).</p><p>Conostigmus pilosiceps Szabo, 1979: 89, ♀. HNHM. Synonymized by Dessart (1983).</p><p>Conostigmus curvilineaticeps Szabo, 1979: 91, ♀. HNHM. Synonymized by Dessart (1983).</p><p>Ceraphron tenuicornis – Thomson 1858: 294. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Megaspilus abdominalis – Thomson 1858: 294. Description, generic transfer. –– Hellén 1966: 5, 8. Description, keyed.</p><p>Conostigmus Abdominalis – Kieffer 1907a: 112, 128. Description, generic transfer.</p><p>Conostigmus abdominalis var. testaceus – Kieffer 1909: 9. Emendation. –– Dessart 1972b: 28. Type information.</p><p>Conostigmus abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 171, 172. Keyed. –– Dessart 1972b: 28. Generic placement, synonymy; 1983: 116, 117. Synonymy; 1997b: 35. Comparison with Conostigmus pulchellus Whittaker, 1930 . –– Alekseev 1978: 678. Description.</p><p>Conostigmus abdominalis abdominalis – Kieffer 1914c: 190. Description.</p><p>Conostigmus abdominalis testaceus – Kieffer 1914c: 190. Description, change to subspecies status.</p><p>Conostigmus divisifrons – Kieffer 1914c: 172, 196. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1972b: 28. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Conostigmus foveatifrons – Kieffer 1914c: 173, 197. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1972b: 28, 30. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832), type information.</p><p>Conostigmus abdominalis var. Testacea – Dessart 1972b: 28: Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Conostigmus pilosiceps – Dessart 1983: 116. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Conostigmus curvilineaticeps – Dessart 1983: 117. Junior synonym of Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>FRANCE • ♀ of Conostigmus divisifrons Kieffer, 1914, synonymized with Conostigmus abdominalis (Boheman, 1832); “Frankreich (Maisons-Laffite, im Juli)” (Kieffer 1907a: 196); MNHN EY25343.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1907a) only described the female of C. divisifrons . Dessart (1972b) suspected that the species Kieffer had described was actually Conostigmus abdominalis from the description, but did not know the whereabouts of the specimen at the time. Dessart (1972b) speculated that the specimen had been returned to its owner, J. De Gaulle, and that it would be found in his collection.</p><p>CT found a single female specimen with a determination label from Kieffer identifying it as C. divisifrons . The locality information matched that of Kieffer (1907a). Though Dessart (1972b) did not know the whereabouts of C. divisifrons, there is a label on this specimen from Dessart (1973) synonymizing this type with Conostigmus abdominalis and providing the publication and page number. Thus, we can conclude that this is the missing holotype of C. divisifrons Kieffer, and that Dessart was able to confirm its synonymization with C. abdominalis . The female is point mounted (MNHN EY25343) and in good condition, with no pieces missing.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFD1981EFDA0F8F7FDE8F805	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFEC9822FD98FEF3FCE5FD0C.text	C3635F69FFEC9822FD98FEF3FCE5FD0C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson 1844)	<div><p>Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844)</p><p>Fig. 17</p><p>Ceraphron formiceti Erichson in Märkel, 1844: 265, ♂. ZMHB.</p><p>Megaspilus Wasmanni Kieffer, 1904: 38, ♂, ♀. NHME, MNHN. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Megaspilus antennalis Kieffer, 1904: 40, ♀. NHME. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Megaspilus crassinervis var. testaceipes Kieffer, 1904: 40, ♀. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Megaspilus lasiophilus Kieffer, 1905: 5, ♀. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Conostigmus Tricolor Kieffer, 1907a: 140, ♀. MCSN. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Conostigmus myrmecobia Kieffer, 1913a: 198, ♂. NHMUK. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Conostigmus formicarum Kieffer, 1914a: 141, ♂, ♀. NHMUK. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Conostigmus wasmanni nidorum Kieffer, 1914c: 205, ♂, ♀. Synonymized by Dessart (1975).</p><p>Conostigmus Testaceipes – Kieffer 1907a: 134, 167. Description, generic transfer, change to species status.</p><p>Conostigmus Wasmanni – Kieffer 1907b: 151, 160. Description, generic transfer. –– Maneval 1937: 6. Variation.</p><p>Conostigmus Antennalis – Kieffer 1907b: 163. Description, generic transfer.</p><p>Conostigmus Lasiophilus – Kieffer 1907b: 167. Description, generic transfer.</p><p>Conostigmus Formiceti – Kieffer 1907b: 170. Description, generic transfer.</p><p>Conostigmus testaceipes – Kieffer 1914c: 173, 177, 198. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) . –– Alekseev 1978: 678, 679. Description.</p><p>Conostigmus tricolor – Kieffer 1914c: 174, 201. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) . –– Alekseev 1978: 678. Description.</p><p>Conostigmus wasmanni – Kieffer 1914c: 175, 176. Keyed. –– Alekseev 1978: 679. Description.</p><p>Conostigmus wasmanni wasmanni – Kieffer 1914c: 204. Description. –– Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) .</p><p>Conostigmus myrmecobius – Kieffer 1914c: 175, 207. Description, emendation, keyed. –– Masner 1965: 16. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Description, type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) .</p><p>Conostigmus formicarum – Kieffer 1914c: 176, 177, 209. Description, keyed. –– Masner 1965: 15. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) .</p><p>Conostigmus antennalis – Kieffer 1914c: 176, 210. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57, 61, 63. Type information, junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) . –– Alekseev 1978: 678. Description.</p><p>Conostigmus lasiophilus – Kieffer 1914c: 177, 211. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) .</p><p>Conostigmus formiceti – Kieffer 1914c: 213. Description. –– Dessart 1975: 56. Description, synonymy, type information.</p><p>Megaspilus wasmanni – Kelner-Pillault 1958: 149. Type information. –– Dessart 1975: 59, 61, 62. Description, lectotype designation.</p><p>Ceraphron formiceti – Dessart 1972a: 236. Lectotype designation.</p><p>Conostigmus wasmanni nidorum – Dessart 1975: 57. Junior synonym of Conostigmus formiceti (Erichson, 1844) .</p><p>Conostigmus wasmanni var. nidorum – Dessart 1975: 63. Type information.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Paralectotype</p><p>FRANCE • ♂, paralectotype of Megaspilus wasmanni; “PATRIE. Dans les colonies de Formica rufa a Exaeten, en Hollande, en mars et août” (Kieffer 1904: 39); MNHN EY25344 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1904) described Megaspilus wasmanni from a syntype series of males and females collected at several locations. The male specimen at the MNHN was collected in Leche, and was reportedly found at the university in Bitche where Kieffer used to teach and subsequently donated to the MNHN (Kelner-Pillault 1958). Dessart viewed the specimen in 1972 and determined it was a paralectotype of Megaspilus wasmanni, which he later published (Dessart 1975).</p><p>The male specimen is point mounted (MNHN EY25344), with the ant it parasitized point mounted underneath it. The antennae, one fore wing, one hind wing, and several portions of the legs are missing. The abdomen is detached and glued to the point. There is a label from Dessart indicating that there was at least one slide preparation associated with the specimen (prép. no. 6605/253), but CT was unable to locate any corresponding slides at the MNHN. Several months later, MNHN collection manager Agnièle Touret-Alby was able to locate two slides, one of the male genitalia and one containing two legs and wings. The slides were originally borrowed with other material by Dessart.A colleague returned the bulk of the material to the MNHN after Dessart’s death, including the dried specimen but not the associated slides. Upon contact, the colleague generously located the slides and mailed them to the MNHN. Both slides were imaged by Agnièle Touret-Alby © MNHN.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFEC9822FD98FEF3FCE5FD0C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFEE9824FE45FD10FDE6FA1C.text	C3635F69FFEE9824FE45FD10FDE6FA1C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conostigmus grangeri (Dessart & Masner 1965)	<div><p>Conostigmus grangeri (Dessart &amp; Masner, 1965)</p><p>Figs 18–19</p><p>Ecnomothorax grangeri Dessart &amp; Masner, 1965: 283, 287, ♂, ♀. MNHN. Keyed.</p><p>Conostigmus grangeri – Dessart &amp; Cancemi 1987: 315, 323. Generic transfer .</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>ALGERIA • ♀; “« Font. des Gazelles, Oran, 6-4-58, J. BARBIER» (6 avril 1958)” (Dessart &amp; Masner 1987: 287); MNHN EY25339, EY22448.</p><p>Allotype</p><p>ALGERIA • ♂; “«Aïn Franin, Oran, 25-4-59, J. BARBIER»” (Dessart &amp; Masner 1987: 287); MNHN EY25340, EY22444 to EY22447.</p><p>Paratypes</p><p>ALGERIA • 1 ♀;“« Le Portet, Oran, 15-3-59, J. BARBIER»” (Dessart &amp; Masner 1987: 287); MNHN EY25341 • 1 ♂; same data as for preceding; MNHN EY25342 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Dessart &amp; Masner (1965) described Ecnomothorax grangeri from two male and two female specimens, all of which are deposited at the MNHN. The genus Ecnomothorax Dessart &amp; Masner, 1965 was later synonymized with Conostigmus by Dessart &amp; Cancemi (1987).</p><p>The female holotype is glued to cardstock (MNHN EY25339), with one slide preparation (prép. no.6501/104) of the right antenna in poor condition (MNHN EY22448). The male allotype is contained within a vial that is point mounted through the cork (MNHN EY25340). There are four associated slides (prép. no. 6501/103), including the left antenna (MNHN EY22446), the right anterior leg (MNHN EY22445), and the last few segments of the metasoma, the pedicel and F1–5 of the right antenna (MNHN EY22444). The fourth slide, containing the male genitalia (MNHN EY22447), is in such poor condition that it is not possible to actually view the genitalia. It is worth mentioning that the microscope preparation numbers given by Dessart &amp; Cancemi (1987) do not match the actual preparation numbers given on the specimen.</p><p>There is also a female (MNHN EY 25341) and male (MNHN EY 25342) paratype, both of which are glued to cardstock. Whole-body images were taken of the male paratype in place of the allotype. The female paratype was not imaged.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFEE9824FE45FD10FDE6FA1C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFE89825FD85FA01FBE2FA56.text	C3635F69FFE89825FD85FA01FBE2FA56.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conostigmus leviventris Kieffer 1907	<div><p>Conostigmus leviventris Kieffer, 1907</p><p>Fig. 20</p><p>Conostigmus Leviventris Kieffer, 1907a: 139, ♀. MNHN.</p><p>Conostigmus leviventris – Kieffer 1914c: 174, 200. Description, keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Paralectotype</p><p>FRANCE • ♀; “PATRIE. France: Arras en juin (De Gaulle): Amiens en juin (Carpenter)” (Kieffer 1907a: 139); MNHN EY25346 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1907a) described the female of the species, but it is unknown how many specimens Kieffer observed or where the specimen(s) are. There is a double point-mounted female specimen at the MNHN (MNHN EY25346) with locality information matching that given in Kieffer (1907a). Dessart left a label on this specimen in 1973 designating it the female paralectotype of Conostigmus leviventris, while also leaving the comment “= rufescens f. ailee!”. However, Dessart never formally synonymized C. leviventris with C. rufescens . The identity and whereabouts of the implied lectotype are unknown. The female specimen is double point mounted and in poor condition. Unfortunately, the specimen is missing its head, and the pin it is double point-mounted on has begun to rust.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFE89825FD85FA01FBE2FA56	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFE99828FDF1FA31FD9FFA6F.text	C3635F69FFE99828FDF1FA31FD9FFA6F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conostigmus pedester Kieffer 1913	<div><p>Conostigmus pedester Kieffer, 1913</p><p>Figs 21–22</p><p>Conostigmus pedester Kieffer, 1913b: 13, ♂, ♀. MNHN.</p><p>Conostigmus pedester – Kieffer 1914c: 177, 215. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1966a: 24. Lectotype designation, description; 1997a: 62, 125. Description, keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Lectotype</p><p>KENYA • ♀; “AFRIQUE ORIENTALE ANGLAISE: mont Kénya: prairies alpines: a une altitude de 3.300 et 3.700 m., 27 janvier 1912, st. no 43. -- escarpements rocheux sur la rive gauche de Haugsburg vallée, altitude de 3.650 m., 31 janvier 1912, st. no 44; tamisages” (Kieffer 1913b: 14); MNHN EY25354, EY22452, EY22453.</p><p>Allolectotype</p><p>KENYA • ♂; same data as for lectotype; MNHN EY25353, EY22450, EY22451.</p><p>Paralectotypes</p><p>KENYA • 1 ♂; same data as for lectotype; MNHN EY25356 • 2 ♀♀; same data as for lectotype; EY25355 .</p><p>Note The specimens do not include individual labels with locality information, so it is uncertain which specimens came from which locality.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Kieffer (1913b) described both the male and female of Conostigmus pedester from specimens collected by Ch. Alluaud and R. Jeannel on their 1911–1912 African expedition. Dessart (1966a) redescribed and illustrated the species. There are five specimens in all at the MNHN, two males and three females. Dessart (1966a) designated a female lectotype and male allolectotype, with the remaining specimens as paralectotypes. The type information is missing from the specimens, but is provided in Dessart (1966a).</p><p>The female lectotype is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25354). There are two slide preparations (prép. no. 6506/042), one with the left antenna (MNHN EY22452) and one with a reduced wing (MNHN EY22453).</p><p>The male allolectotype is also in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25353). There are two slide preparations (prép. no. 6506/041), one with the left antenna (MNHN EY22450) and the other with the male genitalia in poor condition (MNHN EY22451). The right antenna is missing.</p><p>The male paralectotype is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25356) and bears a determination label from Kieffer marked with “Type 44”. The metasoma is missing the end segments and genitalia, which was noted in Dessart (1966a). The two female paralectotypes are together in the same ethanol vial (MNHN EY25355), and bear a determination label from Kieffer marked with “Type 43”. The two female paralectotypes were not imaged.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFE99828FDF1FA31FD9FFA6F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFE4982AFD81F9FBFAD1FD41.text	C3635F69FFE4982AFD81F9FBFAD1FD41.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dendrocerus omostenus Dessart 1979	<div><p>Dendrocerus omostenus Dessart, 1979</p><p>Fig. 23</p><p>Dendrocerus omostenus Dessart, 1979b: 34, ♀. MNHN.</p><p>Dendrocerus omostenus – Fergusson 1980: 301. Possibly a species of Conostigmus .</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>ALGERIA • ♀; “« Oran, 7-4-1958 / J. Bar- bier», «1069», «Prép. mictoscopiques N° 7707 /081»” (Dessart 1979b: 38); MNHN EY25348, EY22455, EY22456.</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Dessart (1979b) described this species from a single female specimen. In his publication, he explains that he placed the species in the genus Dendrocerus mainly because of the ocellar triangle, which is an isosceles triangle and has a broad base in this species, whereas in species of Conostigmus the ocellar triangle is more equilateral. He notes that the species also lacks a sternaulus, which is sometimes present in Conostigmus but always absent in Dendrocerus . However, he does admit that the species bears similarities to the genus Conostigmus, notably in the scape, the presence of the supraclypeal depression, and the slim appearance of the noutalices and the mesosoma (Dessart 1979b).</p><p>The single female specimen is card mounted (MNHN EY25348), with two slide preparations (prép. no. 7707/081) of the right antenna (MNHN EY22455) and the right fore and hind wings (MNHN EY22456).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFE4982AFD81F9FBFAD1FD41	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFE6982DFD98FD4AFBB9FD90.text	C3635F69FFE6982DFD98FD4AFBB9FD90.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dendrocerus remaudierei Dessart 1974	<div><p>Dendrocerus remaudierei Dessart, 1974</p><p>Figs 24–25</p><p>Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) remaudierei Dessart, 1974: 76, ♀, ♂. IPCP, MNHN, MHNG, ISNB.</p><p>Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) remaudierei – Alekseev 1978: 672, 674. Description. –– Kiriyak 1978: 41. Keyed. –– Alekseev &amp; Radchenko 2001: 10, 11. Keyed.</p><p>Dendrocerus remaudierei – Fergusson 1980: 301. Diagnosis. –– Dessart &amp; Gärdenfors 1985: 209. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>FRANCE • ♂; “« Sur Salix / 9 km E. Varaville /(Calvados) 16-IX-72 / Ecl. 21-X-1972: Réc. G. Remaudière» et « P. Dessart det. 1973/ Dendrocerus /remaudierei/sp. n.»” (Dessart 1974: 83); MNHN EY25335, EY22468, EY22469, EY22472.</p><p>Allotype</p><p>FRANCE • ♀; same data as for holotype; MNHN EY25336, EY22470, EY22471.</p><p>Paratypes</p><p>FRANCE • 2 ♂♂; same data as for holotype; MNHN EY25337, EY25338 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Dessart (1974) described this species from male and female specimens. The species was named after Dr. G. Remaudière, who reared the specimens from aphids. Dessart reported that the holotype, the allotype, one female paratype, and seven male paratypes were given to Dr. Remaudière at the IPCP: in addition, Dessart (1974) reports a male paratype and a female paratype deposited at the MHNG, and four additional female paratypes and four male paratypes at the ISNB.</p><p>It appears that the specimens deposited at the IPCP were moved to the MNHN, likely following Dr. Remaudière’s retirement. CT found four specimens, including the holotype, the allotype and two male paratypes at the MNHN. CT contacted the IPCP but was told that the specimens are not there; it is uncertain what happened to the remaining six paratype specimens.</p><p>The male holotype specimen has three associated microscope preparations (prép. no. 7301/191). One slide (MNHN EY22469) contains the male genitalia, which are in poor condition; the second (MNHN EY22468) contains the metasoma and fragments. The last slide (MNHN EY22472) with the right antenna is broken, with the pieces gathered together in an envelope. The remainder of the specimen is point mounted (MNHN EY25335).</p><p>The female allotype is also point mounted (MNHN EY25336) and has two slide preparations (prép. no. 7301/194), with one slide containing the right fore and hind wings (MNHN EY22470) and the other slide containing the right antenna (MNHN EY22471). There are also two male paratypes that are point mounted (MNHN EY25337 and MNHN EY25338) and were not imaged.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFE6982DFD98FD4AFBB9FD90	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFE1982FFDF7FD45FB6DFC73.text	C3635F69FFE1982FFDF7FD45FB6DFC73.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aphanogmus aphidi (Risbec 1955)	<div><p>Aphanogmus aphidi (Risbec, 1955)</p><p>Fig. 26</p><p>Ceraphron aphidi Risbec, 1955: 216, 219, ♂, ♀. Keyed. PBZT?, MNHN.</p><p>Ceraphron aphidi – Risbec 1956: 833. Variation.</p><p>Aphanogmus aphidi – Dessart 1962: 297. Generic transfer, description; 1989: 215. Diagnosis.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Syntype</p><p>MADAGASCAR • ♀; “ Bekily VIII 1933. A. SEYRIG” (Risbec 1955: 221); MNHN EY22474 .</p><p>Other specimens</p><p>MADAGASCAR • 8 ♀♀, 1 ♂; MNHN EY22459 • 15 ♀♀; Lac Alaotra; MNHN EY22460 • 5 ♂♂, 8 ♀♀; MNHN EY22461 • 4 ♀♀; MNHN EY22462 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Risbec (1955) originally described the species Ceraphron aphidi from male and female specimens collected in Tsimbazaza, located in Antananarivo, Madagascar. However, no repository for these specimens was ever indicated. The type information was given as follows: “Localité et hôles. Tsimbazaza. Parasites de pucerons sur les feuilles de Schinus mollis 5 ♀, 1 ♂. Sortie des adultes 19.6.1952. N° 1071.” (Risbec 1955: 220). A second set of locality information, presumably of more paratypes, is given as follows: “Même localite. Parasites de pucerons sur les feuilles de Bauhinia sp. Elevage du 12.7.1951. Sortie des adultes 6.8.1951. N°912. RENAUD PAULIAN” (Risbec 1955: 221). On a fresh line, what appears to be a third set of locality information is given as “Bekily VIII 1933. 12 females. A. SEYRIG” (Risbec 1955: 221).</p><p>Dessart (1962) acquired a loan of specimens on a microscope preparation that was deposited at Antananarivo, possibly the PBZT in Antananarivo, Madagascar. The microscope preparation Dessart viewed was labeled only with the words “ Ceraphron aphidi RISBEC ”, but contained five females and one male specimen, corresponding with the first series of types described by Risbec (1955). Dessart (1962) assumed these specimens to be the one male and five female specimens cited in Risbec (1955), and moved the species from Ceraphron to Aphanogmus based on antennal characters.</p><p>At the MNHN, CT discovered one double point mounted female specimen labeled as Ceraphron aphidi Risbec and bearing a label saying “TYPE” (MNHN EY22474). The locality information on this specimen matches one of those given in Risbec (1955), and it is likely one of the twelve females mentioned in this publication. It is uncertain who put the type label on this, or where the other specimens from the same locality are, but based on the matching locality label information, we presume this to be one of the missing syntypes. This specimen is absent from the discussion of the species in Dessart (1962), but we know that Dessart viewed it, because he added a label to it in 1962 (presumably after the publication) identifying it as Ceraphron braconiphaga Ghesquière, 1942 . Though later Dessart (1971) synonymized Ceraphron braconiphaga with Aphanogmus fijiensis, he makes no mention of this specimen in that publication, and never officially synonymized the species Aphanogmus aphidi with Aphanogmus fijiensis during his lifetime (Johnson &amp; Musetti 2004).</p><p>In the slide collection, CT also found a case of Risbec slides containing four slides labeled as Ceraphron aphidi Risbec. Each slide preparation had multiple specimens floating freely in glycerine, protected by an additional glass coverslide attached with wax along the edges. These slides do not appear to be types according to their limited locality information, but they appear to be prepared in the same way as the other Risbec slides mentioned in Dessart (1962). Though we know Dessart viewed the double point mounted specimen, there is no indication that he ever saw these four slide-mounted specimen lots at the MNHN. Perhaps if he had been able to study these specimens, he would have been able to confirm whether these specimens are actually Ceraphron braconiphaga or Aphanogmus fijiensis .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFE1982FFDF7FD45FB6DFC73	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFE39830FDF1FC1CFED0FD69.text	C3635F69FFE39830FDF1FC1CFED0FD69.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceraphron testaceus (Risbec 1953)	<div><p>Ceraphron testaceus (Risbec, 1953)</p><p>Fig. 27</p><p>Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec, 1953a: 560, Fig. 4, ♂.</p><p>Ceraphron testaceus – Dessart 1962: 300. Generic transfer.</p><p>Ceraphron (?) testaceus – Dessart 1989: 224. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>Holotype</p><p>CÔTE D’IVOIRE • ♂; “Adiopodoumé. Sur galles de Phytolyma lata 7-1951. A Ledoux. ” (Risbec 1953a: 563); MNHN EY22457.</p><p>Other material</p><p>COUNTRY UNKNOWN • 1 ♂; MNHN EY22458 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Afrotropical.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Risbec (1953a: 560) described the new genus Ceranogmus as a “Genre voisin de Ceraphron et Aphanogmus ”. Risbec (1953a) described the species Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec as the type species for this genus, providing a detailed description and illustration. The species was described based on a single male with the following locality information: “Adiopodoumé. Sur galles de Phytolyma lata 7-1951. A Ledoux.” (Risbec 1953a: 563). A type repository was never indicated for the specimen.</p><p>Dessart synonymized this genus with Ceraphron (Dessart 1962) and later included the species Ceraphron testaceus in a key to African species, but these were based largely on the description and the illustrations of Ceranogmus testaceus that Risbec (1953a) provided. It is clear from his writing and the question marks peppered throughout it that Dessart never found or observed the type specimen for the species for himself.</p><p>CT found 2 slides labeled “ Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec ” in the same case of Risbec material containing the Ceraphron aphidi slides in the MNHN collections. Like the slides for Ceraphron aphidi, each slide preparation had one or multiple specimens floating freely in glycerine, protected by an additional glass cover slide attached with wax along the edges. One slide, MNHN EY22457, has information that matches the locality information given for the type in Risbec (1953a). The slide contains a male specimen with the head detached. Since Risbec did not always label his type specimens (David G. Notton pers. comm.), it very likely that this specimen is the missing holotype, and we consider it as such. The second slide (MNHN EY22458) also contains a male specimen with the head detached, but the collection information does not match.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFE39830FDF1FC1CFED0FD69	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFFD9832FDFEFEF3FAD1FC7F.text	C3635F69FFFD9832FDFEFEF3FAD1FC7F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conostigmus gestroi Kieffer 1907	<div><p>Conostigmus gestroi Kieffer, 1907</p><p>Fig. 28</p><p>Conostigmus Gestroi Kieffer, 1907b: 159, ♀.</p><p>Conostigmus kaszabi Szabo, 1979: 89, ♀. HNHM. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1983).</p><p>Conostigmus gestroi – Kieffer 1914c: 176, 208. Description, keyed. –– Dessart 1983: 115. Synonymy.</p><p>Conostigmus kaszabi – Dessart 1983: 115, 116. Junior synonym of Conostigmus gestroi Kieffer, 1907 .</p><p>Material examined</p><p>FRANCE • 1 ♀; “PATRIE. France: Maisons-Lafitte (De Gaulle), variété à tête chagrinée et parsemée de points très distincts, flagellum mince, filiforme, hanches brun noir (Kieffer 1907b: 159); MNHN EY25345 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>When Kieffer (1907b: 159) described the species Conostigmus gestroi from a female, he noted the existence of a “variété à tête chagrinée et parsemée de points très distincts, flagellum mince, filiforme, hanches brun noir, ” collected from France at “Maisons- Laffite (De Gaulle)”. Although the location of the holotype of the species is unknown, Dessart found a female specimen in the MNHN that was consistent with the variety Kieffer described. Dessart viewed and left a label on the specimen in 1973 considering it a “ var. illeg .”. Though Dessart hesitantly synonymized Conostigmus kaszabi with C. gestroi (1983), this publication does not comment on the MNHN specimen or mention C. gestroi as a “ var. illeg .”</p><p>The female specimen is card mounted (MNHN EY25345) and in good condition, with no pieces missing.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFFD9832FDFEFEF3FAD1FC7F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFFE9832FE57FC21FD7BFA22.text	C3635F69FFFE9832FE57FC21FD7BFA22.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conostigmus muesebecki (Dessart & Masner 1965)	<div><p>Conostigmus muesebecki (Dessart &amp; Masner, 1965)</p><p>Ecnomothorax muesebecki Dessart &amp; Masner, 1965: 277, 287, ♂, ♀. USNM. Keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>None (see Comments).</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Nearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>Johnson &amp; Musetti (2004) report that the male and female type specimens of Ecnomothorax musebecki are deposited at the MNHN. However, this is a mistake in the catalog. These specimens are actually deposited in the National Museum of Natural History (USNM) in Washington, D.C., as specified in the original publication (Dessart &amp; Masner 1965).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFFE9832FE57FC21FD7BFA22	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
C3635F69FFFE9834FDAEF9EDFD14FBF2.text	C3635F69FFFE9834FDAEF9EDFD14FBF2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dendrocerus serricornis (Boheman 1832)	<div><p>Dendrocerus serricornis (Boheman, 1832)</p><p>Fig. 29</p><p>Ceraphron serricornis Boheman, 1832: 334, ♂. MZLU.</p><p>Ceraphron serricornis Zetterstedt, 1840: 413, ♂. MZLU. Preoccupied by Ceraphron serricornis Boheman, 1832 .A junior objective synonym of Ceraphron serricornis Boheman, 1832, synonymized by Dessart (1972c).</p><p>Ceraphron Piceae Ratzeburg, 1852: 179 . Type apparently destroyed. Synonymized by Dessart (1972c).</p><p>Ceraphron lapponicus Thomson, 1858: 290, ♀. NHRS. Synonymized by Dessart (1972c).</p><p>Lygocerus Subramosus Kieffer, 1907a: 39, ♂, ♀. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1972c).</p><p>Lygocerus pinicola Muesebeck, 1959: 92, ♂, ♀. USNM. Synonymized by Dessart (1996).</p><p>Atritomellus zetterstedti Ghesquière, 1960: 208 . Replacement name for Ceraphron serricornis Zetterstedt, 1840 . Synonymized by Dessart (1972c).</p><p>Ceraphron serricornis Boheman – Thomson 1858: 292. Description.</p><p>Lygocerus serricornis (Boheman) – Marshall 1868: 158. Generic transfer. –– Kieffer 1909: 8. Generic transfer; 1914c: 147, 156. Description, keyed.</p><p>Lygocerus lapponicus – Dalla Torre 1898: 534. Generic transfer. –– Kieffer 1914c: 148, 159. Description, keyed.</p><p>Megaspilus piceae – Kieffer 1906: 256. Generic transfer.</p><p>Lygocerus Lapponicus – Kieffer 1907a: 56. Description.</p><p>Lygocerus Piceae – Kieffer 1907a: 65. Description.</p><p>Ceraphron Serricornis Zetterstedt – Kieffer 1907b: 261. Description.</p><p>Dendrocerus serricornis (Zetterstedt) – Kieffer 1909: 6. Generic transfer.</p><p>Atritomellus serricornis (Zetterstedt) – Kieffer 1914c: 142, 143. Generic transfer, description, keyed.</p><p>Lygocerus subramosus – Kieffer 1914c: 146, 151. Description, keyed.</p><p>Lygocerus piceae – Kieffer 1914c: 162. Description.</p><p>Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) subramosus – Dessart 1966b: 13. Generic transfer, subgeneric assignment.</p><p>Dendrocerus (?Atritomellus) zetterstedti: Dessart 1966b: 13 . Generic transfer, subgeneric assignment.</p><p>Lygocerus (Lygocerus) lapponicus – Hellén 1966: 10, 13. Description, subgeneric assignment, keyed.</p><p>Lygocerus pinicola – Masner &amp; Muesebeck 1968: 113. Type information. –– Dessart 1996: 289. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus serricornis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman) – Dessart 1972c: 31, 43, 251, figs 145–154. Description, illustration, synonymy, type information, keyed, subgeneric transfer. –– Teodurescu 1973: 67. Description. –– Alekseev 1978: 671, 675. Description. –– Alekseev &amp; Radchenko 2001: 10, 11. Keyed.</p><p>Ceraphron serricornis Zetterstedt – Dessart 1972c: 253. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Atritomellus zetterstedti – Dessart 1972c: 253, 267. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Ceraphron lapponicus – Dessart 1972c: 253, 262, 263. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832), type information.</p><p>Ceraphron piceae – Dessart 1972c: 253, 262. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Lygocerus subramosus – Dessart 1972c: 253, 265. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Dendrocerus (? Atritomellus) zetterstedti – Dessart 1972c: 267. Junior synonym of Dendrocerus (Macrostigma) serricornis (Boheman, 1832) .</p><p>Dendrocerus serricornis (Boheman) – Dessart 1978: 299. Diagnosis. –– Fergusson 1980: 263, 265, 290. Description, synonymy, keyed.</p><p>Material examined</p><p>COUNTRY UNKNOWN • 1 ♂; MNHN EY22454 .</p><p>Distribution</p><p>Nearctic and palearctic.</p><p>Comments</p><p>CT found one slide preparation (prép. no. 7403/221) containing only the male genitalia (MNHN EY22454) that Dessart made in 1974. The rest of the specimen could not be located. Though this specimen is not a type, we felt it was a valuable specimen to image since there are no photographs of Dendrocerus serricornis to date. Dessart (1972c) provides illustrations of the male genitalia, which correspond well with the genitalia imaged.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3635F69FFFE9834FDAEF9EDFD14FBF2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Trietsch, Carolyn;Mikó, István;Deans, Andrew R.	Trietsch, Carolyn, Mikó, István, Deans, Andrew R. (2019): A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart. European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2019.502
