中国盘绒茧蜂族分类研究
|
摘要
盘绒茧蜂族Cotesiini隶属于膜翅目Hymenoptera细腰亚目Apocrita茧蜂科Braconidae小腹茧蜂亚科Microgastrinae,是茧蜂科中最大的类群之一。本族的种类绝大部分寄生于鳞翅目幼虫,极少数种类亦寄主鞘翅目、双翅目及膜翅目叶蜂科的某些种类的幼虫。其中很多种类是农林害虫的重要天敌,在一些农林害虫的生物防治上有重要的应用。本文对中国盘绒茧蜂族的分类进行了研究和整理,包括总论和各论两个部分。
总论部分回顾了盘绒茧蜂族及其所属的小腹茧蜂亚科的研究历史,简述了该类群在全世界和我国的分类研究概况,简要介绍了该族的生物学特性和地理分布。各论部分主要依据Yu et al.(2005)的分类系统,从浙江大学寄生蜂标本馆馆藏的数万号小腹茧蜂亚科标本中,鉴定该族6属1亚属80种,加上中国已有分布而该研究未见的8属50种,共记述130种,其中包括1新记录属、37新种、14新记录种。各属级和亚属级分类单元均列出文献引证、特征简述等信息；编制了分属及分种检索表；对已知种进行了鉴别特征的记述,列出了详细的引注和寄主信息,并核对了部分荷兰莱顿生物多样性中心Natural is的馆藏定名标本；对新种进行了详细的描述,新种和新记录种均附有特征图。新分类单元和新记录如下：
新种：短脊盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia carinicilla Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;密盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia densa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;黄柄盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia flavistipula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;英盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia fortis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;毛角盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia hispidula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;中隆盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia mediconvexa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;异盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia mirabilis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;光头盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia polita Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;后沟盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia retrofossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;半皱盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia semirugosa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;炫盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia splendida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;维斯塔盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia vesta Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;双沟背腰茧蜂,新种Deuterixys bifossalis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;短距背腰茧蜂,新种Deuterixys curticalcar Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;叉沟沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster bifurcifossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;短脉沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster brevivena Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;窄背沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster grammata Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;平背沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster ineminens Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;亮角沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster laetimedia Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;光背沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster pluriminitida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;异沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster praritas Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;点盾沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster punctati scutum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;透沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster translucida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;桑尺蠖原绒茧蜂,新种Protapantele (Protapanteles) atrilineatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;柏毛虫原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) cupressaceae Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;直缘原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) euthymarginatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;展皱原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) extensus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;六盘山原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) liupanshanensis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;脊背原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mediugum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;俄狄浦斯原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) oedipis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;匀点原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) paripunctus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;缎原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) satinifulgor Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;半刻原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) semirugosus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;坦塔罗斯原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tantalus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;膨头原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tumidus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;硕基原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) validus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;狭原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Rasivalva) angustus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.。
新记录属：背腰茧蜂属Deuterixys Mason,1981.
新记录种：阿氏胄腹茧蜂Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989;诺氏胄腹茧蜂Buluka noyesi Austin,1989;壶夜蛾盘绒茧蜂(Cotesia capucinae (Fischer,1961);美国白蛾盘绒茧蜂Cotesia hyphantriae (Riley,1887);哈萨克盘绒茧蜂Cotesia kazak (Telenga,1949);钩粉蝶盘绒茧蜂Cotesia risilis (Nixon,1974);红足盘绒茧蜂(Cotesia rubripes (Haliday,1834);暗黑盘绒茧蜂Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael,1837);毁沟腹茧蜂Diolcogaster perniciosa (Wilkinson,1929)；埃涅阿斯原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) anchisiades (Nixon,1973);灰灯蛾原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) creatonoti (Viereck,1912);网褥尺蛾原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mandanis (Nixon,1965);波氏原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) popovi (Telenga,1955);衡大威氏茧蜂Wilkinsonellus paramplus Long et van Achterberg,2003。
The tribe Cotesiini (Hymenoptera:Microgastrinae) is one of the largest groups of Braconidae, including approximately600described species of14genera. The majority of Cotesiini are endoparasitoids of larvae of Lepidoptera while a few species parasitize species of Coleoptera, Diptera and Tenthredinidae (Hymenoptera). Many species of the tribe are very important in natural control of agricultural and forest pests. The species of tribe Cotesiini from China are revised in the present work. This dissertation comprises two parts, general part and taxonomic part.
The general part is mainly about taxonomic history of the subfamily Microgastrinae which includes the tribe Cotesiini. In the taxonomic part, about80species in6genera and1subgenus from China are recognized, of which37species are new to science, and1genus and14species are recorded from China for the first time.50previously known species of8genera from China with on specimens available for this study are also noted. Description of the known genus Pseudovenanides Xiao et You,2002is similar to that of the genus Deuterixys Mason,1981, while the types are not checked, so this genus is excluded from the key to genera of tribe Cotesiini from China. Information of diagonostic characters, distribution and hosts are provided for each genus, subgenus and species. Keys to genera, subgenera and species are also provided. In addition, authentically identified species deposited in the Netherlands Centre of Biodiversity Naturalis were checked to confirm the identification of some known species in this study.
Types are all deposited in the Parasitic Hymenoptera Collection of Zhejiang University. A listed of the new and newly reorded taxa are as follows:
New species:Cotesia carinicilla Zeng et Chen, sp. nov; Cotesia densa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia flavistipula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia fortis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia hispidula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia mediconvexa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia mirabilis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia polita Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia retrofossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia semirugosa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia splendida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia vesta Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Deuterixys bifossalis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov. Deuterixys curticalcar Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster bifurcifossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster brevivena Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster grammata Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster ineminens Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster laetimedia Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster pluriminitida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster praritas Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster punctatiscutum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) atrilineatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) cupressaceae Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) euthymarginatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) extensus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) liupanshanensis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mediugum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) oedipis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) paripunctus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) satinifulgor Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) semirugosus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tantalus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tumidus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) validus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Rasivalva) angustus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
Genus new to China:Deuterixys Mason,1981.
Species new to China:Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989; Buluka noyesi Austin,1989; Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989; Buluka noyesi Austin,1989; Cotesia capucinae (Fischer,1961); Cotesia hyphantriae (Riley,1887); Cotesia kazak (Telenga,1949); Cotesia risilis (Nixon,1974); Cotesia rubripes (Haliday,1834); Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael,1837); Diolcogaster perniciosa (Wilkinson,1929); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) anchisiades (Nixon,1973); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) creatonoti (Viereck,1912); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mandanis (Nixon,1965); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) popovi (Telenga,1955); Wilkinsonellus paramplus Long et van Achterberg,2003.
Tribe Cotesiini Mason,1981Key to genera of tribe Cotesiini from China
1. Basal half (about) of T1broadly U-sharped in cross-section; ovipositor sheath never with large, apically broadening and truncate hairs; areolet usually (95%) open (vein r-m usually absent)..................................................................................................................................2
Basal half or more of T1with a longitudinal median groove, the tergite in cross-section almost V-shaped; ovipositor sheath often with1-4large, apically broadening and truncate hairs; areolet seldom (5%) open (vein r-m usually present).................................................4
2. Propodeum rather smooth, without carinae, ocassonally with a medial longitudinal keel; if propodeum coarsely rugose or densely, forewing with areolet closed; hairs of ovipositor sheath usually normal, but sometimes smaller than normal abdominal hairs, sometimes almost or quite invisible at50×............................................................................................3
Propodeum mostly rugose, usually with a median carina and a short transverse carina running mesad from near the spiracle; areolet never closed (vein r-m always absent); hairs of ovipositor sheath normal, about the same size as hairs on terminal abdominal segment........................................................................................................Cotesia Cameron,1891
3. T1long, evenly narrowed posteriorly at basal half and at apical half, respectively; without excavation at basal half; rugose laterally at apical2/5, and with a shallow longitudinal notch............................................................................................Chaoa Luo et You,2004
T1parellel-sided, evenly broadening or narowing posteriorly, never narrowed posteriorly at basal half and at apical half, respectively............................Protapanteles Ashmead,1898
4. Flagellomeres with placodes arranged irregularly, often in3or more rank; abdomen very smooth; wings with colored pattern................................Protomicroplitis Cameron,1891
Flagellomeres mostly with placodes in2ranks (rarely the antennae very short and all flagellomeres with only1rank of percurrent placodes); abdomen smooth or coarsely sculptured; wings usually hyaline........................................................................................5
5. Areolet open (r-m absent)....................................................................................................6
Areolet closed (r-m present)................................................................................................7
6. T1at least4X longer than wide; T2-3polished; propodeum very coarsely reticulate with3irregular carinae diverging from the apical orifice................Wilkinsonellus Mason,1981
T1much less narrow; T2-3rimulose; propodeum smooth and polished with a strong median carina...............................................................................Deuterixys Mason,1981
7. T2and T3united into a rather uniformly rugose carapace concealing rest of abdomen; T2with no differentiaed median field................................................Buluka de Saeger,1948
No such carapace present or if there is one, then T2and T3both have a triangular or other median field defined by strong grooves orT2strongly rugose.............................................. ................................................................................................Diolcogaster Ash mead,1900
1. Genus Buluka de Saeger,1948Key to species of the genus Buluka from China
1. Posterior rim of gaster indented so that carapace hangs well over margin.......................... Buluka orientalis Chou,1985
Posterior rim of gaster rarely indented, if so then carapace not over-hanging posterior margin of gaster..................................................................................................................2
2. T1and T2yellow, rest of gaster black; dorsomedial lobe of pronotum at least in posterior half rugose. Small species, approximately2.5mm in length; face of female narrow (mean face width:head width=1:2.57)............................................. Buluka noyesi Austin,1989
T1and T2all black or partly marked with yellow; dorsomedial lobe of pronotum smooth3
3. Smooth area around propodeal spiracle large and reaching anteriorly to foremargin of propodeum; body and wings very dark, venation and infuscated areas of forewing in particular very deeply pigmented, infuscation virtually opaque.......................................... Buluka taiwanensis Austin,1989
Smooth area around propodeal spiracle relatively small, not reaching anteriorly to foremargin of propodeum; body and wings dark, but forewing infuscation still translucent Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989
2. Genus Chaoa Luo et You,2004Only one species of this genus, Chaoa flavipes Luo, You et Xiao,2004, is known in China.
3. Genus Cotesia Cameron,20041891Key to species of the genus Cotesia from China
1. Segment13-17of antennae cubic or at most subcubic, hardly longer than wide; antennae short, usually distictly shorter than body..............................................................................2
Segment13-16of antennae longer than wide, at most (16-)17th joint subcubic, antenna indistinctly shorter to longer than body..............................................................................14
2. Mesosoma dorso-ventrally compressed; hind tibial spurs more or less equal in length, shorter than half of hind basitarsus.......................................................................................3
Mesosoma not dorso-ventrally compressed; hind tibial spurs with viarable length..............6
3. Mesonotum with dense punctures at least anteriorly; mesopleuron smooth and shiny except dense punctures around subtegular ridge; T1and T2with similar sculptures.......................4
Mesonotum with sparse punctures; mesopleuron smooth and shiny but punctate anteriorly; T1and T2with different sculptures.....................................................................................5
4. Hind coxa with distinct punctures; mesonotum as wide as head; scutellar sulcus arched; junction of vein r and vein2-SR distinctly directed outwards; T2slightly longer than T3.................................................................Cotesia chiloluteelli (You, Xiong et Wang,1985)
Hind coxa with strong rugose-punctures; mesonotum narrower than head; scutellar sulcus staight; junction of vein r and vein2-SR not directed outwards; T2slightly shorter than T3.........................................................................Cotesia hanshouensis (You et Xiong,1983)
5. Face protruding distinctly below antennae; pronotum with shallow punctures below dorsal furrow; propodeum distinctly oblique posteriorly; vein r may as long as vein m-cu.......................................................................................................Cotesia flavipes Cameron,1891
Face not so protruding below antennae; pronotum smooth and impunctate below dorsal furrow; propodeum relatively flattened; vein r shorter than vein m-cu......................................................................................................................Cotesia chilonis (Munakata,1912)
6. Vein r slightly shorter than vein2-SR..................................................................................7
Vein r longer than vein2-SR................................................................................................8
7. Hind coxa with undefined punctures or deep rugose-punctures; mesoscutum with dense strong subreticulate-punctures especially on posterior half, almost smooth on lateral1/4; T3smooth and shiny..................................................Cotesia radiantis (Wilkinson,1929)
Hind coxa with dense strong punctures on flattened dorso-lateral area of outer surface; mesoscutum with dense shallow punctures, deeper posteriorly; T3polished except rugulosity at base......................................................Cotesia fortis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
8. Propodeum without trace of medial longitudinal keel..........................................................9
Propodeum at least with weak medial longitudinal keel.....................................................12
9. T1more or less parallel-sided............................................................................................10
T1at least indistinctly broadened posteriorly.....................................................................11
10. T1fully3x as long as wide, very narrow; ovipositor sheath about1/3as long as metasoma, slender and distinctly decurved; mesonotum more or less shiny, punctures on surface reduced, more and more distinct anteriorly; scutellum impunctate...........................................................................................................................Cotesia angustibasis (Gahan,1925)
T1more or less longer than the greatest width before apex; ovipositor sheath distinctly shorter than2nd segment of hind tarsus; mesoscutum dull to with satin-sheen, with dense fine punctures, almost invisible; scutellum with trace of fine puncture............................................................................................................................Cotesia pieridis (Bouche,1834)
11. Vein1-R1about as long as to more or less disntinctly longer than pterostigma; mesoscutum with weak to very weak punctures from anterior to posterior but smooth just before scutellar sulcus, notauli indistinct; malar space and eyes normal............................................................................................................................Cotesia kazak (Telenga,1949)
Vein1-R1shorter than pterostigma; mesonotum usually with dense to confused punctures; malar space usually long,1.2-1.5x longer than basal width of labium and eyes small in lateral view.................................................................Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael,1837)
12. Antennae distinctly shorter than body; vein1-R1at least as long as ptrostigma; T3as most finely punctate partially.....................................................................................................13
Antennae about as long as body; vein1-R1distinctly shorter than ptrostigma; T3coarsely rugose except laterally and posteriorly.....................Cotesia densa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
13. Flagellum without erect pilosity; propodeum only with a weak medial longitudinal keel; vein1-CU1slight longer than vein2-CU1; vein r arsing from pterostigma obliquely...............................................................................Cotesia mediconvexa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
Flagellum with erect pilosity; propodeum with a distinct and completed medial longitudinal keel; vein1-CU1shorter than vein2-CU1; vein r perpendicular to anterior margin of pterostigma........................................Cotesia hispidula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
14. Hind coxa evenly rugose to rugulose or rugose-punctate; inner hind tibial spur not longer than outer one, both of them not longer than half of basitarsus..........................................15
Hind coxa punctate or unevenly rugose or rugose-punctate (partly rugose or rugose-punctate); hind tibial spurs with viarable length.....................................................21
15. Scutellum at most faintly punctate, shiny...........................................................................16
Scutellum at least on posterior half, densely punctate to rugose........................................19
16. Fore apical tarsus withoutspine; T2less transverse, at most twice wider behind than long medially; inner hind tibial spur about as long as outer one................................................17
Fore apical tarsus with a small spine, but not emarginated at the base; T2transverse, thrice wider behind than long medially; inner hind tibial spur shorter than outer one, rarely equal in length...............................................................................Cotesia tibialis (Curtis,1830)
17. Preapical segment of antennae longer, about twice as long as wide; T3more less with sculptures; mesoscutum without medial longitudinal upheaval on posterior half..............18
Preapical segment of antennae short,1.4x as long as wide; T3polished, without sculptures; mesoscutum with a smooth and shiny narrow medial longitudinal upheaval on posterior half....................................................................Cotesia carinicilla Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
18. Mesosoma narrower than head; face weakly rugose, dorsal1/3with a protruding medially; T2longtitudinally swelling medially.......................Cotesia luminata Chen et Song,2004
Mesosoma as wide as head; face rugose-punctate, without protruding; T2not longtitudinally swelling medially...............................Cotesia planula Song et Chen,2004
19. T2less transverse, not more than2.5x longer medialy than wide behind; hypopygium less developed, not beyond apex of metasoma; T3slightly longer than T2...............................20
T2strongly transverse,2.7-3.Ox longer medialy than wide behind; hypopygium highly developed, usually a little beyond apex of metasoma; scutellum with weaker sculptures, punctures weaker medially...................................Cotesia melitaearum (Wilkinson,1937)
20. T1not longer than wide behind; T2more transverse,2.2-2.5x longer medially than wide behind; T3usually rugulose to uneven basally, scattered with fine seta all over; scutellum densely rugose-punctate, shiny........................................Cotesia vestalis (Haliday,1834)
Tl slightly longer than wide behind; T2less transverse,1.7-2.Ox longer medially than wide behind; T3polished, with a transverse row of seta before posterior margin, rarely also with few seta laterally; scutellum with sparser punctures and interspaces polished anteriorly, rusogse to rugose-punctate posteriorly....................... Cotesia ruficrus (Haliday,1834)
21. Fore apical tarsus with a spine...........................................................................................22
Fore apical tarsus without spine.........................................................................................28
22. Inner hind tibial spur not longer than outer one, at most slightly longer, shorter than half of basitarsus...........................................................................................................................23
Inner hind tibial spur longer than outer one and not shorter than half of basitarsus...........24
23. Part of ovipositor that excerted beyond hypopygium about as long as3rd segment of hind tarsi; the phragma of scutellum narrowly visible; mesoscutum with fine sculptures that comprised of fine punctures; notauli indistinct, indicated by dull sculptured band or more or less coarse punctures........................................Cotesia melanoscela (Ratzeburg,1844)
Ovipositor short, not excerted beyond hypopygium; the phragma of scutellum completely hidened; mesoscutum with coarse punctures; notauli indistinct, indicated by dull sculptured band or more or less coarse punctures; course of notauli punctuate.............................................................................................................................. Cotesia schaeferi (Marsh,1979)
24. T3usually polished, at most rugulose along anterior margin and medially........................25
T3mostly sculptured..........................................................................................................26
25. Hind coxa with large area of coarse punctures dorsally at base, and with longditudinal striae dorsally at apex, other parts with well seperated fine punctures; T3smooth in a triangular area among the base, the apex and middle of the base, other parts with fine punctures; vein1-R12.5-3.Ox as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell..........................................................................................................Cotesia spuria (Wesmael,1837)
Hind coxa polished, only with sparse fine punctures on outer surface; T3rugulose and with longitudinal-arciculate sculptures, but polishe laterally and posteriorly; vein1-R1only slightly longer than its distance from apex of marginal cell....................................................................................................................................Cotesia polita Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
26. Propodeum with a indistinct or weak longitudinal keel; hind tibia with sparse thickened spines on outer surface; preapical segment of antennae long, at least twice as long as wide...........................................................................................................................................27
Propodeum with a complete distinct longitudinal keel; hind tibia without thickened spines on outer surface; preapical segment of antennae short, not more than twice as long as wide....................................................................................Cotesia vesta Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
27. The transverse, posterior tangent to the anterior ocellus just touch the posterior pair; T2less transverse, only twice as wide as long medially; ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than half of hind basitarsus; head slightly broader than mesoscutum; face with a percurrent medial longitudinal upheaval.............................Cotesia splendida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
The transverse, posterior tangent to the anterior ocellus cut the posterior pair; T2more transverse,2.7x as wide as long medially; ovipositor sheath shorter than half of hind basitarsus; head slightly narrower than mesoscutum; face with a indistinct medial longitudinal upheaval.................................... Cotesia semirugosa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
28. Inner hind tibial spur not longer than half of basitarsus, usually not longer than outer one, at most slightly longer........................................................................................................29
Inner hind tibial spur longer than half of basitarsus, usually longer than outer one, at least subequal.............................................................................................................................43
29. T3completely smooth........................................................................................................30
T3at least partly rugulose to rugose or punctate................................................................38
30. Ocelli in a high triangular and scutellum smooth and shiny...............................................31
Ocelli in a low triangular or scutellum usually more or less punctate................................32
31. Hypopygium very long and large, distinctly excerted beyond apex of tergites, about as long as total length of former sternites; ovipositor sheath about as long as hind basitarsus; T1without trace of swelling medially...........................Cotesia acuminata (Reinhard,1880)
Hypopygium developed, but not excerted beyond apex of tergites; ovipositor sheath about1/3as long as hind basitarsus; T1with a smooth swelling medially........................................................................................................................Cotesia simurae (You et Zhou,1989)
32. Propodeum without trace of medial longitudinal keel........................................................33
Propodeum at least with weak or part of medial longitudinal keel.....................................35
33. Mesosoma not dorso-ventrally compressed; ovipositor sheath excerted beyong apex of hypopygium.......................................................................................................................34
Mesosoma not dorso-ventrally compressed; ovipositor sheath excerted beyong apex of hypopygium................................................Cotesia chiloniponellae (You et Wang,1990)
34. T2with weak swelling medially and longitudinally rugulose laterally, with distinct median field and a smooth field medially at base; T3without medial longitudinal keel; hind tibial spurs short, about equal in length, inner one hardly reach middle of basitarsus; vein1-R1as long as pterostigma; T1distinctly longer medially than wide behind.........................................................................................................................Cotesia vanessae (Reinhard,1880)
T2with sparse punctures, wihtout smooth field, with sharp ridge laterally; T3with medial longitudinal keel; inner hind tibial spur as long as half of and outer one as long as1/3of, length of basitarsus,; vein1-R1longer than pterostigma; T1as long as than wide behind......................................................................................................Cotesia theae (Sonan,1942)
35. Mesoscutum and scutellum at most densely punctate; ocelli in a low trangular.................36
Mesoscutum and scutellum densely and deeply punctate-rugose; ocelli in a high trangular..........................................................................................Cotesia kariyai (Watanabe,1937)
36. The phragma of scutellum more or less visible; no medial longitudinal keel behind ocelli; vein r slightly or distinctly longer than vein2-SR; hind coxa more or less with punctures; propodeum at least with indistinct medial longitudinal keel..............................................37
The phragma of scutellum hidden; a dark-coulored medial longitudinal keel extending from ocelli to occiput; vein r about as long as vein2-SR; hind coxa smooth and shiny; propodeum rarely with medial rugae reduced, indicated by longitudinal keel...................................................................................................Cotesia alternicolor (You et Zhou,1988)
37. Hypopygium short, apex truncate in lateral view; mesoscutum with regularly distributed fine punctures or finely rugulose anteriorly but polished and with satin-sheen posteriorly; T2transverse, more or less quadrate, with longitudinal sculptures, but with ill-defined lateral sulci..............................................................................Cotesia affinis (Nees,1834)
Hypopygium very short, apex with a semirounded emargination medially; mesoscutum shiny with dense and distinct punctures, distance between punctures shorter or much shorter than diameter of puncture itself; T2subtriangular, with deep but indistinct lateral sulci, if with sculptured surface, it shiny, smooth laterally........................................................................................................................................Cotesia glomerata (Linnaeus,1758)
38. The posterior, polished band of scutellum continueous, not interrupting at middle; hind coxa usually smooth, at most with fine punctures..............................................................39
The posterior, polished band of scutellum interrupting at middle by rugose spot; hind coxa with coarse punctures dorsally at base and fine longitudinal striae at apex, with well-seperated weak punctures on outer surface..........Cotesia rubecula (Marshall,1885)
39. Ovipositor sheath short,, shorter than hind basitarsus; mesoscutum with distincte punctures, not rugose or rugulose; T3usually with weak sculptures on basal1/3...............................40
Ovipositor sheath as long as hind basitarsus, tapering toward apex; mesoscutum with weak to very weak punctures, which usually confleunt so that surface of mesoscutum unevenly rugulose; T3smooth and shiny except a black rugose spot at middle.....................................................................................................................Cotesia scabricula (Reinhard,1880)
40. Ovipositor sheath without erect seta; the phragma of scutellum invisible, propodeum with a medial longitudinal keel.....................................................................................................41
Ovipositor sheath with erect seta; the phragma of scutellum visible, propodeum without medial longitudinal keel................................................Cotesia hyphantriae (Riley,1887)
41. T2and the following tergites without longditudinal keel; vein r not longer than twice of vein2-SR; face without medial longitudinal keel..............................................................42
T2and the following tergites with a longditudinal keel; vein r twcie as long as vein2-SR; face with weak medial longitudinal keel..............Cotesia dictyoplocae (Watanabe,1940)
42. T1strongly reticulate-rugose apically; T3more or less rugose on basal1/3; antennae slightly shorter than body; vein r shorter than width of pterostigma.........................................................................................................................Cotesia anomidis (Watanabe,1942)
T1rugose-punctate apically, usually punctate; T3with trace of weak punctures medially only at base; antennae longer than body; vein r longer than width of pterostigma.................................................................................................Cotesia taprobanae (Cameron,1897)
43. T3completely smooth........................................................................................................44
T3at least partly rugulose to rugose or punctate................................................................53
44. T2more or less with sculptures; T1at least rugose posteriorly, if smooth and shiny and with few setigerous punctures posteriorly, then T1widest at middle and gradually narrowed toward apex........................................................................................................45
T2shiny, without trace of sculptures; T1polished and shiny, only with sparse distinct punctures on apical half............................................Cotesia erionotae (Wilkinson,1928)
45. Mesoscutum without notauli..............................................................................................46
Mesoscutum with more or less distinct notauli..................................................................50
46. Vein r not equal to vein2-SR in length..............................................................................47
Vein r as long as vein2-SR................................................................................................48
47. Vein r distinctly shorter than vein2-SR; basal cell with normal seta along vein M+CU1; hind coxa distinctly rugose dorsally at base; T1with dull surface, longitudinally rugose and punctuate..................................................................Cotesia cirphicola (Bhatnagar,1948)
Vein r distinctly longer than vein2-SR; basal cell with long and sparse seta along vein M+CU1but with even seta all over; hind coxa with outer surface smooth to partly (or wholly) uneven, with very fine and discrete punctures; T1subshiny anteriorly, strongly rugose....................................................................................Cotesia risilis (Nixon,1974)
48. Vein1-Rl as long as width of pterostigma; T2with indistinct median field, if distinct then rugose; ovipositor sheath not curved..................................................................................49
Vein1-R1distinctly longer than width of pterostigma; T2with2lateral sulci extending from anterior margin to posterior margin, which narrowed medially, enclose a smooth median field, area beside it rugose; ovipositor sheath slightly downcurved.......................................................................................................Cotesia mirabilis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
49. Mesoscutum densely reticulate-rugose, smooth before posterior margin; inner hind tibial spur slightly longer than outer one; scutellum smooth; propod
总论部分回顾了盘绒茧蜂族及其所属的小腹茧蜂亚科的研究历史,简述了该类群在全世界和我国的分类研究概况,简要介绍了该族的生物学特性和地理分布。各论部分主要依据Yu et al.(2005)的分类系统,从浙江大学寄生蜂标本馆馆藏的数万号小腹茧蜂亚科标本中,鉴定该族6属1亚属80种,加上中国已有分布而该研究未见的8属50种,共记述130种,其中包括1新记录属、37新种、14新记录种。各属级和亚属级分类单元均列出文献引证、特征简述等信息；编制了分属及分种检索表；对已知种进行了鉴别特征的记述,列出了详细的引注和寄主信息,并核对了部分荷兰莱顿生物多样性中心Natural is的馆藏定名标本；对新种进行了详细的描述,新种和新记录种均附有特征图。新分类单元和新记录如下：
新种：短脊盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia carinicilla Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;密盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia densa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;黄柄盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia flavistipula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;英盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia fortis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;毛角盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia hispidula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;中隆盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia mediconvexa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;异盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia mirabilis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;光头盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia polita Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;后沟盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia retrofossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;半皱盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia semirugosa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;炫盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia splendida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;维斯塔盘绒茧蜂,新种Cotesia vesta Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;双沟背腰茧蜂,新种Deuterixys bifossalis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;短距背腰茧蜂,新种Deuterixys curticalcar Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;叉沟沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster bifurcifossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;短脉沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster brevivena Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;窄背沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster grammata Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;平背沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster ineminens Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;亮角沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster laetimedia Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;光背沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster pluriminitida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;异沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster praritas Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;点盾沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster punctati scutum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;透沟腹茧蜂,新种Diolcogaster translucida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;桑尺蠖原绒茧蜂,新种Protapantele (Protapanteles) atrilineatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;柏毛虫原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) cupressaceae Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;直缘原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) euthymarginatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;展皱原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) extensus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;六盘山原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) liupanshanensis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;脊背原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mediugum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;俄狄浦斯原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) oedipis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;匀点原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) paripunctus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;缎原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) satinifulgor Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;半刻原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) semirugosus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;坦塔罗斯原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tantalus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;膨头原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tumidus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;硕基原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Protapanteles) validus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.;狭原绒茧蜂,新种Protapanteles (Rasivalva) angustus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.。
新记录属：背腰茧蜂属Deuterixys Mason,1981.
新记录种：阿氏胄腹茧蜂Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989;诺氏胄腹茧蜂Buluka noyesi Austin,1989;壶夜蛾盘绒茧蜂(Cotesia capucinae (Fischer,1961);美国白蛾盘绒茧蜂Cotesia hyphantriae (Riley,1887);哈萨克盘绒茧蜂Cotesia kazak (Telenga,1949);钩粉蝶盘绒茧蜂Cotesia risilis (Nixon,1974);红足盘绒茧蜂(Cotesia rubripes (Haliday,1834);暗黑盘绒茧蜂Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael,1837);毁沟腹茧蜂Diolcogaster perniciosa (Wilkinson,1929)；埃涅阿斯原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) anchisiades (Nixon,1973);灰灯蛾原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) creatonoti (Viereck,1912);网褥尺蛾原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mandanis (Nixon,1965);波氏原绒茧蜂Protapanteles (Protapanteles) popovi (Telenga,1955);衡大威氏茧蜂Wilkinsonellus paramplus Long et van Achterberg,2003。
The tribe Cotesiini (Hymenoptera:Microgastrinae) is one of the largest groups of Braconidae, including approximately600described species of14genera. The majority of Cotesiini are endoparasitoids of larvae of Lepidoptera while a few species parasitize species of Coleoptera, Diptera and Tenthredinidae (Hymenoptera). Many species of the tribe are very important in natural control of agricultural and forest pests. The species of tribe Cotesiini from China are revised in the present work. This dissertation comprises two parts, general part and taxonomic part.
The general part is mainly about taxonomic history of the subfamily Microgastrinae which includes the tribe Cotesiini. In the taxonomic part, about80species in6genera and1subgenus from China are recognized, of which37species are new to science, and1genus and14species are recorded from China for the first time.50previously known species of8genera from China with on specimens available for this study are also noted. Description of the known genus Pseudovenanides Xiao et You,2002is similar to that of the genus Deuterixys Mason,1981, while the types are not checked, so this genus is excluded from the key to genera of tribe Cotesiini from China. Information of diagonostic characters, distribution and hosts are provided for each genus, subgenus and species. Keys to genera, subgenera and species are also provided. In addition, authentically identified species deposited in the Netherlands Centre of Biodiversity Naturalis were checked to confirm the identification of some known species in this study.
Types are all deposited in the Parasitic Hymenoptera Collection of Zhejiang University. A listed of the new and newly reorded taxa are as follows:
New species:Cotesia carinicilla Zeng et Chen, sp. nov; Cotesia densa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia flavistipula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia fortis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia hispidula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia mediconvexa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia mirabilis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia polita Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia retrofossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia semirugosa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia splendida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Cotesia vesta Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Deuterixys bifossalis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov. Deuterixys curticalcar Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster bifurcifossa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster brevivena Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster grammata Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster ineminens Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster laetimedia Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster pluriminitida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster praritas Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Diolcogaster punctatiscutum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) atrilineatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) cupressaceae Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) euthymarginatus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) extensus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) liupanshanensis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mediugum Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) oedipis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) paripunctus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) satinifulgor Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) semirugosus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tantalus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) tumidus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Protapanteles) validus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.; Protapanteles (Rasivalva) angustus Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
Genus new to China:Deuterixys Mason,1981.
Species new to China:Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989; Buluka noyesi Austin,1989; Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989; Buluka noyesi Austin,1989; Cotesia capucinae (Fischer,1961); Cotesia hyphantriae (Riley,1887); Cotesia kazak (Telenga,1949); Cotesia risilis (Nixon,1974); Cotesia rubripes (Haliday,1834); Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael,1837); Diolcogaster perniciosa (Wilkinson,1929); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) anchisiades (Nixon,1973); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) creatonoti (Viereck,1912); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) mandanis (Nixon,1965); Protapanteles (Protapanteles) popovi (Telenga,1955); Wilkinsonellus paramplus Long et van Achterberg,2003.
Tribe Cotesiini Mason,1981Key to genera of tribe Cotesiini from China
1. Basal half (about) of T1broadly U-sharped in cross-section; ovipositor sheath never with large, apically broadening and truncate hairs; areolet usually (95%) open (vein r-m usually absent)..................................................................................................................................2
Basal half or more of T1with a longitudinal median groove, the tergite in cross-section almost V-shaped; ovipositor sheath often with1-4large, apically broadening and truncate hairs; areolet seldom (5%) open (vein r-m usually present).................................................4
2. Propodeum rather smooth, without carinae, ocassonally with a medial longitudinal keel; if propodeum coarsely rugose or densely, forewing with areolet closed; hairs of ovipositor sheath usually normal, but sometimes smaller than normal abdominal hairs, sometimes almost or quite invisible at50×............................................................................................3
Propodeum mostly rugose, usually with a median carina and a short transverse carina running mesad from near the spiracle; areolet never closed (vein r-m always absent); hairs of ovipositor sheath normal, about the same size as hairs on terminal abdominal segment........................................................................................................Cotesia Cameron,1891
3. T1long, evenly narrowed posteriorly at basal half and at apical half, respectively; without excavation at basal half; rugose laterally at apical2/5, and with a shallow longitudinal notch............................................................................................Chaoa Luo et You,2004
T1parellel-sided, evenly broadening or narowing posteriorly, never narrowed posteriorly at basal half and at apical half, respectively............................Protapanteles Ashmead,1898
4. Flagellomeres with placodes arranged irregularly, often in3or more rank; abdomen very smooth; wings with colored pattern................................Protomicroplitis Cameron,1891
Flagellomeres mostly with placodes in2ranks (rarely the antennae very short and all flagellomeres with only1rank of percurrent placodes); abdomen smooth or coarsely sculptured; wings usually hyaline........................................................................................5
5. Areolet open (r-m absent)....................................................................................................6
Areolet closed (r-m present)................................................................................................7
6. T1at least4X longer than wide; T2-3polished; propodeum very coarsely reticulate with3irregular carinae diverging from the apical orifice................Wilkinsonellus Mason,1981
T1much less narrow; T2-3rimulose; propodeum smooth and polished with a strong median carina...............................................................................Deuterixys Mason,1981
7. T2and T3united into a rather uniformly rugose carapace concealing rest of abdomen; T2with no differentiaed median field................................................Buluka de Saeger,1948
No such carapace present or if there is one, then T2and T3both have a triangular or other median field defined by strong grooves orT2strongly rugose.............................................. ................................................................................................Diolcogaster Ash mead,1900
1. Genus Buluka de Saeger,1948Key to species of the genus Buluka from China
1. Posterior rim of gaster indented so that carapace hangs well over margin.......................... Buluka orientalis Chou,1985
Posterior rim of gaster rarely indented, if so then carapace not over-hanging posterior margin of gaster..................................................................................................................2
2. T1and T2yellow, rest of gaster black; dorsomedial lobe of pronotum at least in posterior half rugose. Small species, approximately2.5mm in length; face of female narrow (mean face width:head width=1:2.57)............................................. Buluka noyesi Austin,1989
T1and T2all black or partly marked with yellow; dorsomedial lobe of pronotum smooth3
3. Smooth area around propodeal spiracle large and reaching anteriorly to foremargin of propodeum; body and wings very dark, venation and infuscated areas of forewing in particular very deeply pigmented, infuscation virtually opaque.......................................... Buluka taiwanensis Austin,1989
Smooth area around propodeal spiracle relatively small, not reaching anteriorly to foremargin of propodeum; body and wings dark, but forewing infuscation still translucent Buluka achterbergi Austin,1989
2. Genus Chaoa Luo et You,2004Only one species of this genus, Chaoa flavipes Luo, You et Xiao,2004, is known in China.
3. Genus Cotesia Cameron,20041891Key to species of the genus Cotesia from China
1. Segment13-17of antennae cubic or at most subcubic, hardly longer than wide; antennae short, usually distictly shorter than body..............................................................................2
Segment13-16of antennae longer than wide, at most (16-)17th joint subcubic, antenna indistinctly shorter to longer than body..............................................................................14
2. Mesosoma dorso-ventrally compressed; hind tibial spurs more or less equal in length, shorter than half of hind basitarsus.......................................................................................3
Mesosoma not dorso-ventrally compressed; hind tibial spurs with viarable length..............6
3. Mesonotum with dense punctures at least anteriorly; mesopleuron smooth and shiny except dense punctures around subtegular ridge; T1and T2with similar sculptures.......................4
Mesonotum with sparse punctures; mesopleuron smooth and shiny but punctate anteriorly; T1and T2with different sculptures.....................................................................................5
4. Hind coxa with distinct punctures; mesonotum as wide as head; scutellar sulcus arched; junction of vein r and vein2-SR distinctly directed outwards; T2slightly longer than T3.................................................................Cotesia chiloluteelli (You, Xiong et Wang,1985)
Hind coxa with strong rugose-punctures; mesonotum narrower than head; scutellar sulcus staight; junction of vein r and vein2-SR not directed outwards; T2slightly shorter than T3.........................................................................Cotesia hanshouensis (You et Xiong,1983)
5. Face protruding distinctly below antennae; pronotum with shallow punctures below dorsal furrow; propodeum distinctly oblique posteriorly; vein r may as long as vein m-cu.......................................................................................................Cotesia flavipes Cameron,1891
Face not so protruding below antennae; pronotum smooth and impunctate below dorsal furrow; propodeum relatively flattened; vein r shorter than vein m-cu......................................................................................................................Cotesia chilonis (Munakata,1912)
6. Vein r slightly shorter than vein2-SR..................................................................................7
Vein r longer than vein2-SR................................................................................................8
7. Hind coxa with undefined punctures or deep rugose-punctures; mesoscutum with dense strong subreticulate-punctures especially on posterior half, almost smooth on lateral1/4; T3smooth and shiny..................................................Cotesia radiantis (Wilkinson,1929)
Hind coxa with dense strong punctures on flattened dorso-lateral area of outer surface; mesoscutum with dense shallow punctures, deeper posteriorly; T3polished except rugulosity at base......................................................Cotesia fortis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
8. Propodeum without trace of medial longitudinal keel..........................................................9
Propodeum at least with weak medial longitudinal keel.....................................................12
9. T1more or less parallel-sided............................................................................................10
T1at least indistinctly broadened posteriorly.....................................................................11
10. T1fully3x as long as wide, very narrow; ovipositor sheath about1/3as long as metasoma, slender and distinctly decurved; mesonotum more or less shiny, punctures on surface reduced, more and more distinct anteriorly; scutellum impunctate...........................................................................................................................Cotesia angustibasis (Gahan,1925)
T1more or less longer than the greatest width before apex; ovipositor sheath distinctly shorter than2nd segment of hind tarsus; mesoscutum dull to with satin-sheen, with dense fine punctures, almost invisible; scutellum with trace of fine puncture............................................................................................................................Cotesia pieridis (Bouche,1834)
11. Vein1-R1about as long as to more or less disntinctly longer than pterostigma; mesoscutum with weak to very weak punctures from anterior to posterior but smooth just before scutellar sulcus, notauli indistinct; malar space and eyes normal............................................................................................................................Cotesia kazak (Telenga,1949)
Vein1-R1shorter than pterostigma; mesonotum usually with dense to confused punctures; malar space usually long,1.2-1.5x longer than basal width of labium and eyes small in lateral view.................................................................Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael,1837)
12. Antennae distinctly shorter than body; vein1-R1at least as long as ptrostigma; T3as most finely punctate partially.....................................................................................................13
Antennae about as long as body; vein1-R1distinctly shorter than ptrostigma; T3coarsely rugose except laterally and posteriorly.....................Cotesia densa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
13. Flagellum without erect pilosity; propodeum only with a weak medial longitudinal keel; vein1-CU1slight longer than vein2-CU1; vein r arsing from pterostigma obliquely...............................................................................Cotesia mediconvexa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
Flagellum with erect pilosity; propodeum with a distinct and completed medial longitudinal keel; vein1-CU1shorter than vein2-CU1; vein r perpendicular to anterior margin of pterostigma........................................Cotesia hispidula Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
14. Hind coxa evenly rugose to rugulose or rugose-punctate; inner hind tibial spur not longer than outer one, both of them not longer than half of basitarsus..........................................15
Hind coxa punctate or unevenly rugose or rugose-punctate (partly rugose or rugose-punctate); hind tibial spurs with viarable length.....................................................21
15. Scutellum at most faintly punctate, shiny...........................................................................16
Scutellum at least on posterior half, densely punctate to rugose........................................19
16. Fore apical tarsus withoutspine; T2less transverse, at most twice wider behind than long medially; inner hind tibial spur about as long as outer one................................................17
Fore apical tarsus with a small spine, but not emarginated at the base; T2transverse, thrice wider behind than long medially; inner hind tibial spur shorter than outer one, rarely equal in length...............................................................................Cotesia tibialis (Curtis,1830)
17. Preapical segment of antennae longer, about twice as long as wide; T3more less with sculptures; mesoscutum without medial longitudinal upheaval on posterior half..............18
Preapical segment of antennae short,1.4x as long as wide; T3polished, without sculptures; mesoscutum with a smooth and shiny narrow medial longitudinal upheaval on posterior half....................................................................Cotesia carinicilla Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
18. Mesosoma narrower than head; face weakly rugose, dorsal1/3with a protruding medially; T2longtitudinally swelling medially.......................Cotesia luminata Chen et Song,2004
Mesosoma as wide as head; face rugose-punctate, without protruding; T2not longtitudinally swelling medially...............................Cotesia planula Song et Chen,2004
19. T2less transverse, not more than2.5x longer medialy than wide behind; hypopygium less developed, not beyond apex of metasoma; T3slightly longer than T2...............................20
T2strongly transverse,2.7-3.Ox longer medialy than wide behind; hypopygium highly developed, usually a little beyond apex of metasoma; scutellum with weaker sculptures, punctures weaker medially...................................Cotesia melitaearum (Wilkinson,1937)
20. T1not longer than wide behind; T2more transverse,2.2-2.5x longer medially than wide behind; T3usually rugulose to uneven basally, scattered with fine seta all over; scutellum densely rugose-punctate, shiny........................................Cotesia vestalis (Haliday,1834)
Tl slightly longer than wide behind; T2less transverse,1.7-2.Ox longer medially than wide behind; T3polished, with a transverse row of seta before posterior margin, rarely also with few seta laterally; scutellum with sparser punctures and interspaces polished anteriorly, rusogse to rugose-punctate posteriorly....................... Cotesia ruficrus (Haliday,1834)
21. Fore apical tarsus with a spine...........................................................................................22
Fore apical tarsus without spine.........................................................................................28
22. Inner hind tibial spur not longer than outer one, at most slightly longer, shorter than half of basitarsus...........................................................................................................................23
Inner hind tibial spur longer than outer one and not shorter than half of basitarsus...........24
23. Part of ovipositor that excerted beyond hypopygium about as long as3rd segment of hind tarsi; the phragma of scutellum narrowly visible; mesoscutum with fine sculptures that comprised of fine punctures; notauli indistinct, indicated by dull sculptured band or more or less coarse punctures........................................Cotesia melanoscela (Ratzeburg,1844)
Ovipositor short, not excerted beyond hypopygium; the phragma of scutellum completely hidened; mesoscutum with coarse punctures; notauli indistinct, indicated by dull sculptured band or more or less coarse punctures; course of notauli punctuate.............................................................................................................................. Cotesia schaeferi (Marsh,1979)
24. T3usually polished, at most rugulose along anterior margin and medially........................25
T3mostly sculptured..........................................................................................................26
25. Hind coxa with large area of coarse punctures dorsally at base, and with longditudinal striae dorsally at apex, other parts with well seperated fine punctures; T3smooth in a triangular area among the base, the apex and middle of the base, other parts with fine punctures; vein1-R12.5-3.Ox as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell..........................................................................................................Cotesia spuria (Wesmael,1837)
Hind coxa polished, only with sparse fine punctures on outer surface; T3rugulose and with longitudinal-arciculate sculptures, but polishe laterally and posteriorly; vein1-R1only slightly longer than its distance from apex of marginal cell....................................................................................................................................Cotesia polita Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
26. Propodeum with a indistinct or weak longitudinal keel; hind tibia with sparse thickened spines on outer surface; preapical segment of antennae long, at least twice as long as wide...........................................................................................................................................27
Propodeum with a complete distinct longitudinal keel; hind tibia without thickened spines on outer surface; preapical segment of antennae short, not more than twice as long as wide....................................................................................Cotesia vesta Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
27. The transverse, posterior tangent to the anterior ocellus just touch the posterior pair; T2less transverse, only twice as wide as long medially; ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than half of hind basitarsus; head slightly broader than mesoscutum; face with a percurrent medial longitudinal upheaval.............................Cotesia splendida Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
The transverse, posterior tangent to the anterior ocellus cut the posterior pair; T2more transverse,2.7x as wide as long medially; ovipositor sheath shorter than half of hind basitarsus; head slightly narrower than mesoscutum; face with a indistinct medial longitudinal upheaval.................................... Cotesia semirugosa Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
28. Inner hind tibial spur not longer than half of basitarsus, usually not longer than outer one, at most slightly longer........................................................................................................29
Inner hind tibial spur longer than half of basitarsus, usually longer than outer one, at least subequal.............................................................................................................................43
29. T3completely smooth........................................................................................................30
T3at least partly rugulose to rugose or punctate................................................................38
30. Ocelli in a high triangular and scutellum smooth and shiny...............................................31
Ocelli in a low triangular or scutellum usually more or less punctate................................32
31. Hypopygium very long and large, distinctly excerted beyond apex of tergites, about as long as total length of former sternites; ovipositor sheath about as long as hind basitarsus; T1without trace of swelling medially...........................Cotesia acuminata (Reinhard,1880)
Hypopygium developed, but not excerted beyond apex of tergites; ovipositor sheath about1/3as long as hind basitarsus; T1with a smooth swelling medially........................................................................................................................Cotesia simurae (You et Zhou,1989)
32. Propodeum without trace of medial longitudinal keel........................................................33
Propodeum at least with weak or part of medial longitudinal keel.....................................35
33. Mesosoma not dorso-ventrally compressed; ovipositor sheath excerted beyong apex of hypopygium.......................................................................................................................34
Mesosoma not dorso-ventrally compressed; ovipositor sheath excerted beyong apex of hypopygium................................................Cotesia chiloniponellae (You et Wang,1990)
34. T2with weak swelling medially and longitudinally rugulose laterally, with distinct median field and a smooth field medially at base; T3without medial longitudinal keel; hind tibial spurs short, about equal in length, inner one hardly reach middle of basitarsus; vein1-R1as long as pterostigma; T1distinctly longer medially than wide behind.........................................................................................................................Cotesia vanessae (Reinhard,1880)
T2with sparse punctures, wihtout smooth field, with sharp ridge laterally; T3with medial longitudinal keel; inner hind tibial spur as long as half of and outer one as long as1/3of, length of basitarsus,; vein1-R1longer than pterostigma; T1as long as than wide behind......................................................................................................Cotesia theae (Sonan,1942)
35. Mesoscutum and scutellum at most densely punctate; ocelli in a low trangular.................36
Mesoscutum and scutellum densely and deeply punctate-rugose; ocelli in a high trangular..........................................................................................Cotesia kariyai (Watanabe,1937)
36. The phragma of scutellum more or less visible; no medial longitudinal keel behind ocelli; vein r slightly or distinctly longer than vein2-SR; hind coxa more or less with punctures; propodeum at least with indistinct medial longitudinal keel..............................................37
The phragma of scutellum hidden; a dark-coulored medial longitudinal keel extending from ocelli to occiput; vein r about as long as vein2-SR; hind coxa smooth and shiny; propodeum rarely with medial rugae reduced, indicated by longitudinal keel...................................................................................................Cotesia alternicolor (You et Zhou,1988)
37. Hypopygium short, apex truncate in lateral view; mesoscutum with regularly distributed fine punctures or finely rugulose anteriorly but polished and with satin-sheen posteriorly; T2transverse, more or less quadrate, with longitudinal sculptures, but with ill-defined lateral sulci..............................................................................Cotesia affinis (Nees,1834)
Hypopygium very short, apex with a semirounded emargination medially; mesoscutum shiny with dense and distinct punctures, distance between punctures shorter or much shorter than diameter of puncture itself; T2subtriangular, with deep but indistinct lateral sulci, if with sculptured surface, it shiny, smooth laterally........................................................................................................................................Cotesia glomerata (Linnaeus,1758)
38. The posterior, polished band of scutellum continueous, not interrupting at middle; hind coxa usually smooth, at most with fine punctures..............................................................39
The posterior, polished band of scutellum interrupting at middle by rugose spot; hind coxa with coarse punctures dorsally at base and fine longitudinal striae at apex, with well-seperated weak punctures on outer surface..........Cotesia rubecula (Marshall,1885)
39. Ovipositor sheath short,, shorter than hind basitarsus; mesoscutum with distincte punctures, not rugose or rugulose; T3usually with weak sculptures on basal1/3...............................40
Ovipositor sheath as long as hind basitarsus, tapering toward apex; mesoscutum with weak to very weak punctures, which usually confleunt so that surface of mesoscutum unevenly rugulose; T3smooth and shiny except a black rugose spot at middle.....................................................................................................................Cotesia scabricula (Reinhard,1880)
40. Ovipositor sheath without erect seta; the phragma of scutellum invisible, propodeum with a medial longitudinal keel.....................................................................................................41
Ovipositor sheath with erect seta; the phragma of scutellum visible, propodeum without medial longitudinal keel................................................Cotesia hyphantriae (Riley,1887)
41. T2and the following tergites without longditudinal keel; vein r not longer than twice of vein2-SR; face without medial longitudinal keel..............................................................42
T2and the following tergites with a longditudinal keel; vein r twcie as long as vein2-SR; face with weak medial longitudinal keel..............Cotesia dictyoplocae (Watanabe,1940)
42. T1strongly reticulate-rugose apically; T3more or less rugose on basal1/3; antennae slightly shorter than body; vein r shorter than width of pterostigma.........................................................................................................................Cotesia anomidis (Watanabe,1942)
T1rugose-punctate apically, usually punctate; T3with trace of weak punctures medially only at base; antennae longer than body; vein r longer than width of pterostigma.................................................................................................Cotesia taprobanae (Cameron,1897)
43. T3completely smooth........................................................................................................44
T3at least partly rugulose to rugose or punctate................................................................53
44. T2more or less with sculptures; T1at least rugose posteriorly, if smooth and shiny and with few setigerous punctures posteriorly, then T1widest at middle and gradually narrowed toward apex........................................................................................................45
T2shiny, without trace of sculptures; T1polished and shiny, only with sparse distinct punctures on apical half............................................Cotesia erionotae (Wilkinson,1928)
45. Mesoscutum without notauli..............................................................................................46
Mesoscutum with more or less distinct notauli..................................................................50
46. Vein r not equal to vein2-SR in length..............................................................................47
Vein r as long as vein2-SR................................................................................................48
47. Vein r distinctly shorter than vein2-SR; basal cell with normal seta along vein M+CU1; hind coxa distinctly rugose dorsally at base; T1with dull surface, longitudinally rugose and punctuate..................................................................Cotesia cirphicola (Bhatnagar,1948)
Vein r distinctly longer than vein2-SR; basal cell with long and sparse seta along vein M+CU1but with even seta all over; hind coxa with outer surface smooth to partly (or wholly) uneven, with very fine and discrete punctures; T1subshiny anteriorly, strongly rugose....................................................................................Cotesia risilis (Nixon,1974)
48. Vein1-Rl as long as width of pterostigma; T2with indistinct median field, if distinct then rugose; ovipositor sheath not curved..................................................................................49
Vein1-R1distinctly longer than width of pterostigma; T2with2lateral sulci extending from anterior margin to posterior margin, which narrowed medially, enclose a smooth median field, area beside it rugose; ovipositor sheath slightly downcurved.......................................................................................................Cotesia mirabilis Zeng et Chen, sp. nov.
49. Mesoscutum densely reticulate-rugose, smooth before posterior margin; inner hind tibial spur slightly longer than outer one; scutellum smooth; propod
引文
白素芬,陈学新,程家安,等.菜蛾盘绒茧蜂多分DNA病毒的特性及其对小菜蛾幼虫的生理效应.昆虫学报,2003,46(4)：401-408
陈家骅,宋东宝.中国小腹茧蜂(膜翅目：茧蜂科).福州：福建科学技术出版社,2004：143-203
冯继华,闫国增,姚德富,等.北京地区舞毒蛾天敌昆虫及其自然控制研究.林业科学,1999,35(2)：50-56
何俊华,陈学新,楼晓明,等.茧蜂科//湖南省林业厅主编.湖南森林昆虫图鉴.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992：1250-1266
何俊华,陈学新,马云,等.膜翅目//郑乐怡,归鸿.昆虫分类.南京：南京师范大学出版社,1999：956
何俊华,王金言.膜翅目茧蜂科//邓国藩主编.中国农业昆虫(下册).北京：农业出版社,1978：415-420
李凤荪.江浙棉作害虫之寄生肉食昆虫.昆虫与植病,1935,3：304-307
刘友樵,施振华.落叶松毛虫(Dendrolimus sibiricus Tschetw.)生活史的初步观察.昆虫学报,1957,7(3)：251-260
罗庆怀,游兰韶.中国小腹茧蜂亚科(膜翅目：茧蜂科)一新属新种记述.武夷科学,2003,19：121-125
罗庆怀,游兰韶.小腹茧蜂亚科一新种记述及一新组合(膜翅目：茧蜂科).昆虫分类学报,2005,27(1)：50-56
罗庆怀,游兰韶,肖治术.中国小腹茧蜂亚科(膜翅目,茧蜂科)一新属新种记述.动物分类学报,2004,29(2)：339-341
夏松云.湖南省主要水稻害虫寄生蜂初志.昆虫学报,3：47-71
肖治术,游兰韶.2002,中国小腹茧蜂亚科一新属记述(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,1957,27(3)：616-620
杨忠岐,魏建荣,游兰韶.寄生于美国白蛾幼虫的茧蜂二新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,2002,27(3)：608-615
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(二).湖南农学院学报,1980,4： 15-19
游兰韶,熊漱琳,童新旺.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(一).湖南农学院学报,1980a,3： 17-19
游兰韶,熊漱琳,黎家文,等.湖南绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster初志.湖南农学院学报,1980b,3：20-26
游兰韶,熊漱琳,童新旺.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(三).湖南农学院学报,1981,20(4)：19-28
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster i己述(一).湖南农学院学报,1982,1：57-76
游兰韶,熊漱琳,周志宏.中国绒茧蜂三种新记录.昆虫分类学报,1982,4(3)：204
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属两新种记述.昆虫分类学报,1983,5(3)：225-229
游兰韶,熊漱琳,曹克诚.中国绒茧蜂属新纪录.昆虫学报,1983,26(4)：469
游兰韶,熊漱琳,周至宏.中国绒茧蜂属小志(五).农垦生防,1984a,3-4：18-20
游兰韶,熊漱琳,朱文柄,等.中国绒茧蜂属小志(六).湖南农学院学报,1984b,3：53-60
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属记述(一).农垦生防,1985,3：29-35
游兰韶,熊漱琳,陈芝卿.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(四).昆虫天敌,1985a,7(1)：49-53
游兰韶,熊漱琳,王宗典.绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,1985b,10(4)：421-423
游兰韶,熊漱琳,陈隆岭,等.中国绒茧蜂属新纪录1.昆虫学报,1986,4：425
游兰韶,熊漱琳,党心德,等.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster四新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科)昆虫分类学报,1987a,9(4)：275-281
游兰韶,熊漱琳,周至宏.云南省绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科：小腹茧蜂亚科).动物分类学报,1987b,4：424-426
游兰韶,周志宏.山东苇田绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,1988,13(3)：305-307
游兰韶,周志宏.云南稻田绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).昆虫分类学报,1989,11(4)：307-309
游兰韶,熊漱琳,党心德,等.茧蜂科//陕西省林业科学研究所,湖南省林业科学研究所编：林虫寄生蜂图志.西安：天则出版社,1990a：25-69
游兰韶,王宗典,周志宏.中国绒茧蜂属新种和新纪录(膜翅目：茧蜂科：小腹茧蜂亚科).昆虫分类学报,1990b,33(2)：237-242
游兰韶.中国九种绒茧蜂已知种名录.湖南农业大学学报,1995,21(5)：506-508
游兰韶,陈良昌,杨红旗,等.湖南省茧蜂记述.湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2000,26(5)：394-400
曾赞安,游兰韶,梁广文.寄生荔枝蒂蛀虫的刻绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2007,33(1)：65-67
周梁镒,蒋时贤,黄明道.香蕉弄蝶绒茧蜂之记录.中华农业研究,1989,38(4)：468-470
祝汝佐.中国松毛虫寄生蜂志.昆虫与植病,1937,5(4-6)：56-103
祝汝佐,何俊华等.茧蜂科//中国科学院动物研究所,浙江农业大学等.天敌昆虫图册,第三号.北京：科学出版社,1978：49-65
Alam M M, Bennett F D, et Carl K. Biological control of Diatraea saccharalis (F.) in Barbados by Apanteles flavipes Cam. and Lixophaga diatraeae T. T. Entomophaga,1971,16(2): 151-158
Ashmead W H. Part 2.-Descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera//Dimmock G. Notes of parasitic Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington,1898,4: 155-171.
Ashmead W H. Classification of the Ichneumon flies, or the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1900,23(1206):1-220
Ashmead W H. Descriptions of new genera and species of Hymenoptera from the Philippine Islands. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1904,28(1387):127-158
Austin A D. Revision of the genus Buluka de Saeger (Hymenoptera:Braconidae: Microgastrinae). Systematic Entomology,1989,14(2):149-163
Austin A D. Revision of the enigmatic Australasian genus Miropotes Nixon (Hymenoptera: Braconidae:Microgastrinae), with comments on the phylogenetic importance of the female ovipositor system. Systematic Entomology,1990,15:43-68
Austin A D, et Dangerfield P C. Synopsis of Australasian Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), with a key to genera and description of new taxa. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 1992,6(1):1-76
Austin A D, et Dangerfield P C. Systematics of Australian and New Guinean Microplitis Forster and Snellenius Westwood (Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Microgastrinae), with a review of their biology and host relationships. Invertebrate Taxonomy,1993,7(5):1097-1166
Bartlett B R, Clausen C P, DeBach Paul, et al. Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds:A world review:Agriculture Handbook No.480. Washington, D. C. Agricultural Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture.1978.
Belshaw R, Fitton M, Herniou E, et al. A phylogenetic reconstruction of the Ichneumonoidea (Hymenoptera) based on the D2 variable region of 28S ribosomal RNA. Systematic Entomology,1998,23(2):109-123
Bhatnagar S P. Studies on Apanteles Forster (Vipionidae:parasitic Hymenoptera) from India. Indian Journal of Entomology,1950,10(2):133-203
Brethes J. Hymenopteres parasites del'Am erique meridionale. Annales Buenos Aires Museo Nacional de Historia Natur,1916,27:401-430
Burgess A F, et Crossman S S. Imported insect enemies of the gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth:Technical Bulletin. No.86. Washington, D. C.:United States Department of Agriculture,1929.
Cameron P. Hymenopterological notices. I. On some Hymenoptera parasitic in Indian injurious insects. Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, 1891,(4)4:182-194
Cameron P. On the Tenthredinidae and parasitic Hymenoptera collected in Baluchistan by Major C G. Nurse. Part I. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society,1906,17:89-107
Cameron P. On some African species of the subfamilies Exothecinae, Aphrastobraconinae, Cheloninae, Doryctinae, Cardiochilinae and Microgasterinae in the Royal Berlin Zoological Museum. Zeitschrift fur Naturwissenschaft,1910,81:433-450
Capek M. A new classification of the Braconidae (Hymenoptera) based on the cephalic structure of the final instar larva and biological evidence. Canadian Entomologist,1970,102: 846-875
Chen Y F, Shi M, Huang F, et al. Characterization of two genes of Cotesia vestalis polydnavirus and their expression patterns in the host Plutella xylostella. Journal of General Virology, 2007,88:3317-3322
Chen Y F, Shi M, Liu P C, et al. Characterization of an IκB-like Gene in Cotesia vestalis Polydnavirus. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology,2008,68:71-78
Chinwada P, Omwega C O, et Overholt W A. Stemborer research in Zimbabwe:Prospects for the establishment of Cotesia flavipes Cameron. Insect Science and its Application,2001, 21(4):327-334
Chou L Y. Notes on Apanteles (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) of Taiwan (I). Journal of Agricultural Research of China,1979,28(4):299-310
Chou L Y. A preliminary list of Braconidae (Hymenoptera) of Taiwan. Journal of Agricultural Research. China,1981,30(1):71-88
Chou L Y. A new species of Buluka (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) from Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Entomology,1985,5:85-88
Chou L Y. New records of six braconids (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) from Taiwan. Journal of Agricultural Research of China,1999,48(1):64-66
De Saeger H. Microgasterinae (Hymenoptera:Apocrita). Exploration du Parc National Albert. Mission G F. de Witte,1944,47:1-342
Dowton M, et Austin A D. Phylogenetic relationships among the microgastroid wasps (Hymenoptera:Braconidae):combined analysis of 16S and 28S rDNA genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,1998,10(3):354-366
Dowton M, Austin A D et Antolin M F.1998, Evolutionary relationships among the Braconidae (Hymenoptera:Ichneumonoidea) inferred from partial 16S rDNA gene sequences. Insect Molecular Biology,7(2):129-150
Fahringer J. Schwedisch-chinesische wissenschaftliche Expedition nach den nordwestlichen Provinzen Chinas,26. Hymenoptera.4. Braconidae Kirby. Arkiv foer Zoologi,1935, 27A(12)(1934):1-15
Fahringer J. Opuscula braconologica. Band 4. Palaearktischen Region. Lieferung 1-3. Opuscula braconologica. Wien:Fritz Wagner,1935 (1936).
Fahringer J. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Braconidenfauna Chinas. Arkiv foer Zoologi,1938, 30A(12):1-16
Forster A. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconiden. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens,1862,19:225-288
Gifford J R, et Mann G A. Biology, rearing and a trial release of Apanteles flavipes in the Florida Everglades to control the sugar cane borer. Journay of Economic Entomology, 1967,60:44-47
Hill M G. Analysis of the biological control of Mythimna separata (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) by Apanteles ruficrus (Braconidae:Hymenoptera) in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Ecology,1988,25:197-208
Kankare M et Shaw M R. Molecular phylogeny of Cotesia Cameron,1891 (Insecta: Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Microgastrinae) parasitoids associated with Melitaeini butterflies (Insecta:Lepidoptera:Nymphalidae:Melitaeini). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,2004,32(1):207-220
Long K D et van Achterberg C. Two new species of the genus Wilkinsonellus Mason (Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Microgastrinae) from northern Vietnam. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden,2003,77(10):221-227
Marsh P M. The braconid (Hymenoptera) parasites of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America,1979,72(6): 794-810
Marsh P M, Shaw S R, et Wharton R A. An identification manual for the North American genera of the family Braconidae (Hymenoptera):Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington. No.13. Washington, D. C.:The Entomological Society of Washington,1987.
Marshall T A. Monograph of British Braconidae. Part I. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,1885:1-280
Mason W R M.1981, The polyphyletic nature of Apanteles Foerster (Hymenoptera:Braconidae): A phylogeny and reclassification of Microgastrinae:Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada. No.115. Ottawa:The Entomological Society of Canada,1981.
Minamikawa J. On the Hymenopterous parasites of the tea-leafrollers found in Japan and Formosa. Mushi,1954,26:35-46
Mohyuddin A I, et Shah S. Biological control of Mythimna separata (Lep.:Noctuidae) in New Zealand and its bearing on biological control strategy. Entomophaga,1977,22(4):331-333
Muesebeck C F W. A revision of the North American species of ichneumon-flies belonging to the genus Apanteles. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1921,58: 483-576
Muesebeck C F W. A revision of the North American ichneumon-flies, belonging to the subfamilies Neoneurinae and Microgasterinae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1922,61(2436):1-76
Nixon G E J. A reclassification of the tribe Microgasterini (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series. Supplement,1965,2:1-284
Nixon G E J. The Indo-Australian species of the ultor-group of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series,1967, 21(1):1-34
Nixon G E J. A revision of the genus Microgaster Latreille (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series,1968,22:33-72
Nixon G E J. A revision of the n.w. European species of Microplitis Forster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series,1970, 25(1):1-30
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-westen European species of the laevigatus-gr oup of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1972, 61:701-743
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-western European species of the vitripennis, pallipes, octonarius, triangulator; fraternus; formosus, parasitellas, metacarpalis and circums criptus-gr oups of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1973,63:169-228
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-westen European species of the glomeratus-group of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1974, 64:453-524
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-western European species of the merula, laeteus, vipio, ultor, ater, butalidis, popularis, carbonarius and validus-groups of Apanteles Forster (Hym.:Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1976,65:687-732
Papp J. A contribution of the Braconid fauna of Israel (Hymenoptera). Israel Journal of Entomology,1970,5:63-76
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), I. The species groups. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1976,68:251-274
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), Ⅱ. The laevigatus-group,1. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1978,70:265-301
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), III. The laevigatus-group,2. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1979,71:235-250
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), Ⅳ. The lineipes-, obscurus- and ater-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1980,72:241-272
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), V. The lacteus-, longipalpis-, ultor-, butalidis- and vipio-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1981,73:263-291
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), VI. The laspeyresiella-, merula-,falcatus- and validus-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1982,74:255-267
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), VII. The carbonarius-, circumscriptus-,fraternus-,pallipes-, parasitellae-, vitripennis-, liparidis-, octonarius-and thompsoni-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1983,75:247-283
Papp J. Palaearctic species of Microgaster Latreille (= Microplitis Forster) with description of seven new species (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae). Entomologische Abhandlungen,1984a,47:95-140
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae) VIII. The metacarpalis,formosus,popularis and suevus-groups. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1984b,76:265-295
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae). Ⅸ. The glomeratus-group,1. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1986a,78:225-247
Papp J. First survey of the Glabromicroplitis Papp species of the Holarctic Region, with taxonomical remarks of three Microgaster Latreille species (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae). Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1986b,78: 249-253
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), X. The glomeratus-group 2 and the cultellatus-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1987,79:207-258
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae).11. "Homologization" of the species-groups of Apanteles s.l. with Mason's generic taxa. Checklist of genera. Parasitoid/host list 1. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1988,80:145-175
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae) Ⅻ. Supplement to the key of the glomeratus-group. Parasitoid/host list 2. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1990,81:159-203
Reinhard H. Beitrag zur Kenntniss einiger Braconiden-Gattungen. Funftes Stuck. XVI. Zur Gattung Microgaster, Latr. (Microgaster, Microplitis, Apanteles). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift,1880,24:353-370
Shi M, Chen Y F, Huang F, et al. Characterization of a novel gene encoding ankyrin repeat domain from Cotesia vestalis polydnavirus (CvBV). Virology,2008a,375:374-382
Shi M, Chen Y F, Yao Y, e al. Characterization of a protein tyrosine phosphatase gene CvBV202 from Cotesia vestalis polydnavirus (CvBV). Virus Genes,2008b,36:595-601
Short J R T. A grouping by larval characters of some species of the genus Apanteles (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1953,44:327-332
Skoroszewski R W, et Hamburg H van. The release of Apanteles flavipes (Cameron) (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) against stalk-borers of maize and grain-sorghum in South Africa. Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa,1987,50:249-255
Sonan J. Three new species of parasitic Hymenoptera from Formosa. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Formosa. Taihoku,1942,32:217-220
Tanwar R K, et Varma A. Field evaluation of Cotesia flavipes Cameron (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Indonesian strain) against sugarcane stalk and internode borers. Journal of Biological Control,2001,15(2):127-131
Telenga N A. Microgasterinae//family Braconidae, subfamily Microgasterinae, subfamily Agathinae. Fauna of the U.S.S.R., Hymenoptera,5(4):Zoological Institute, new series No. 61. Translation. Jerusalem:Israel Program for Scientific Translation 1964 (1955):1-295.
Thomson C G. LII. Bidrag till Braconidernas Kannedom. Opuscula Entomologica,1895,20: 2141-2339
Tobias V I. Two new species of braconids from the genus Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) parasites of the moth Bucculatrix ulmella Z. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Moldav. SSR(Biol. Khim),1975,1975(3):60-63
Tobias V I. Microgastrinae//Medvedev G S. Keys to the insects of the European part of USSR, 3 (4) (Hymenoptera:Braconidae), Inc.52 Labombard Road North Lebanon, NH 03766, USA:Translation. Science Publishers,1986:605-883
Tobias V I. New taxa of Braconidae from Baltic amber (Hymenoptera). Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye,1987,66(4):845-859
van Achterberg C. A revision of the subfamily Zelinae auct. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae), Tijdschrift voor Entomologie,1979,122:241-479
Viereck H L. Descriptions of six new genera and twelve new species of Ichneumon-flies. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1913,44(1974):639-648
Viereck H L. A list of families and subfamilies of the Ichneumon-flies in the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,1918,31:69-74
Walker A K, Kitching I J, et Austin A D. A reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships within the Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Cladistics,1990,6:291-306
Watanabe C. On some species of Braconidae from North China and Korea. Insecta Matsumurana,1935,10:43-51
Watanabe C. A contribution to the knowledge of the Braconid fauna of the Empire of Japan. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido (Imp.) University,1937a,42(1):1-188
Watanabe C. On some species of Braconidae from Manchoukuo (Contributions to the knowledge of the Braconid fauna of Manchoukuo, I). Insecta Matsumurana,1937b,12(1): 39-44
Watanabe C. Description of a new Apanteles-species bred from Dictyoploca japonica (Moore) Butler (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Insecta Matsumurana,1940a,15:51-52
Watanabe C. Hymenopterous parasites of the mulberry pyralid moth, Margaronia pyloalis Walker, in Japan (I). Insecta Matsumurana,1940b,14(2-3):85-94
Watanabe C. Descriptions of a new Apanteles-species bred from Anomis fimbriago Stephen in Manchoukuo. Insecta Matsumurana,1942a,16:169-170
Watanabe C. Descriptions of a new subspecies and an imperfectly known species of Apanteles from Nippon.(Hymenoptera:Braconidae) Insecta Matsumurana,1942b,16:147-150
Watanabe C. Braconidae of Shansi, China (Hymenoptera). Mushi,1950,21(2):19-27
Whitfield J B. The Nearctic species of Deuterixys Mason (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist,1985,61(1):60-67
Whitfield J B. Annotated checklist of the Microgastrinae of North America north of Mexico (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society,1995a,68(3): 245-262
Whitfield J B. Xanthapanteles, a new genus of Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) from South America. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington,1995b,97(4): 879-883
Whitfield J B. Microgastrinae//Wharton, R A, Marsh P M, et Sharkey M J. Manual of the New World genera of the family Braconidae (Hymenoptera):Special Publication of the International Society of Hymenopterists No. I. Washington, D. C.:The International Society of Hymenopterists,1997a:333-366.
Whitfield J B. Molecular and morphological data suggest a single origin of the polydnaviruses among braconid wasps. Naturwissenschaften,1997b,84(11):502-507
Whitfield J B, et Mason W R M. Mendesellinae, a new subfamily of braconid wasps (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) with a review of relationships within the microgastroid assemblage. Systematic Entomology,1994,19:61-76
Whitfield J B, et Wagner D L. Annotated key to the genera of Braconidae (Hymenoptera) attacking leafmining Lepidoptera in the Holarctic region. Journal of Natural History,1991, 25:733-754
Whitfield J B, Mardulyn P, Austin A D, et al. Phylogenetic relationships among microgastrine braconid wasp genera based on data from the 16S, COI and 28S genes and morphology. Systematic Entomology,2002,27(3):337-359
Wilkinson D S. A revision of the Indo-Australian species of the genus Apanteles (Hym. Bracon.). Part Ⅰ. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1928,19:79-105,109-146
Wilkinson D S. A revision of the Indo-Australian and Ethiopian species of the genus Microgaster (Hym. Bracon.). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 1929a,77:99-123
Wilkinson D S. New parasitic Hymenoptera and notes on other species. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1929b,20(1):103-114
Wilkinson D S. New species and host records of Ichneumonidae and Braconidae. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1930,21(2):147-158
Wilkinson D S. A revision of the Ethiopian species of the genus Apanteles (Hym. Bracon.). Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,1932,80:301-344
Wilkinson D S. On the identity of Apanteles carbonarius Wesmael, with the description of a new, closely-related, palaearctic species (Hym. Brac.). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London,1940, (B)9(9):157-164
Wilkinson D S. Description of Palaearctic species of Apanteles (Hymen., Braconidae). Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,1945,95:35-226
Williams D J M. The New World genus Lathrapanteles n.gen.:Phylogeny and placement in the Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Cotesini). Canadian Journal of Zoology,1985, 63:1962-1981
Williams D J M. Classification, phylogeny and zoogeographic studies of species of Sathon Mason (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae,1988,24:529-638
Wolcott G N. Insectae Borinquensis. A revised annotated check-list of the insects of Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico,1936,20:1-627
You L S, Xiong S L, et Wang Z D. Annotated list of Apanteles Foerster (Hym.:Braconidae) from China. Entomologica Scandinavica,1988b,19:35-42
Yu R X, Chen Y F, Chen X X, et al. Effects of venom/calyx fluid from the endoparasitic wasp Cotesia plutellae on the hemocytes of its host Plutella xylostella in vitro. J. Insect Physiol, 2007,53:22-29
Yu D S, van Achterberg K, et Horstmann K. World Ichneumonoidea 2004. Taxonomy, Biology, Morphology and Distribution. CD/DVD. Taxapad.2005, Vancouver, Canada,2005.
陈家骅,宋东宝.中国小腹茧蜂(膜翅目：茧蜂科).福州：福建科学技术出版社,2004：143-203
冯继华,闫国增,姚德富,等.北京地区舞毒蛾天敌昆虫及其自然控制研究.林业科学,1999,35(2)：50-56
何俊华,陈学新,楼晓明,等.茧蜂科//湖南省林业厅主编.湖南森林昆虫图鉴.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992：1250-1266
何俊华,陈学新,马云,等.膜翅目//郑乐怡,归鸿.昆虫分类.南京：南京师范大学出版社,1999：956
何俊华,王金言.膜翅目茧蜂科//邓国藩主编.中国农业昆虫(下册).北京：农业出版社,1978：415-420
李凤荪.江浙棉作害虫之寄生肉食昆虫.昆虫与植病,1935,3：304-307
刘友樵,施振华.落叶松毛虫(Dendrolimus sibiricus Tschetw.)生活史的初步观察.昆虫学报,1957,7(3)：251-260
罗庆怀,游兰韶.中国小腹茧蜂亚科(膜翅目：茧蜂科)一新属新种记述.武夷科学,2003,19：121-125
罗庆怀,游兰韶.小腹茧蜂亚科一新种记述及一新组合(膜翅目：茧蜂科).昆虫分类学报,2005,27(1)：50-56
罗庆怀,游兰韶,肖治术.中国小腹茧蜂亚科(膜翅目,茧蜂科)一新属新种记述.动物分类学报,2004,29(2)：339-341
夏松云.湖南省主要水稻害虫寄生蜂初志.昆虫学报,3：47-71
肖治术,游兰韶.2002,中国小腹茧蜂亚科一新属记述(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,1957,27(3)：616-620
杨忠岐,魏建荣,游兰韶.寄生于美国白蛾幼虫的茧蜂二新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,2002,27(3)：608-615
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(二).湖南农学院学报,1980,4： 15-19
游兰韶,熊漱琳,童新旺.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(一).湖南农学院学报,1980a,3： 17-19
游兰韶,熊漱琳,黎家文,等.湖南绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster初志.湖南农学院学报,1980b,3：20-26
游兰韶,熊漱琳,童新旺.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(三).湖南农学院学报,1981,20(4)：19-28
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster i己述(一).湖南农学院学报,1982,1：57-76
游兰韶,熊漱琳,周志宏.中国绒茧蜂三种新记录.昆虫分类学报,1982,4(3)：204
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属两新种记述.昆虫分类学报,1983,5(3)：225-229
游兰韶,熊漱琳,曹克诚.中国绒茧蜂属新纪录.昆虫学报,1983,26(4)：469
游兰韶,熊漱琳,周至宏.中国绒茧蜂属小志(五).农垦生防,1984a,3-4：18-20
游兰韶,熊漱琳,朱文柄,等.中国绒茧蜂属小志(六).湖南农学院学报,1984b,3：53-60
游兰韶,熊漱琳.中国绒茧蜂属记述(一).农垦生防,1985,3：29-35
游兰韶,熊漱琳,陈芝卿.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster小志(四).昆虫天敌,1985a,7(1)：49-53
游兰韶,熊漱琳,王宗典.绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,1985b,10(4)：421-423
游兰韶,熊漱琳,陈隆岭,等.中国绒茧蜂属新纪录1.昆虫学报,1986,4：425
游兰韶,熊漱琳,党心德,等.中国绒茧蜂属Apanteles Forster四新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科)昆虫分类学报,1987a,9(4)：275-281
游兰韶,熊漱琳,周至宏.云南省绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科：小腹茧蜂亚科).动物分类学报,1987b,4：424-426
游兰韶,周志宏.山东苇田绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).动物分类学报,1988,13(3)：305-307
游兰韶,周志宏.云南稻田绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).昆虫分类学报,1989,11(4)：307-309
游兰韶,熊漱琳,党心德,等.茧蜂科//陕西省林业科学研究所,湖南省林业科学研究所编：林虫寄生蜂图志.西安：天则出版社,1990a：25-69
游兰韶,王宗典,周志宏.中国绒茧蜂属新种和新纪录(膜翅目：茧蜂科：小腹茧蜂亚科).昆虫分类学报,1990b,33(2)：237-242
游兰韶.中国九种绒茧蜂已知种名录.湖南农业大学学报,1995,21(5)：506-508
游兰韶,陈良昌,杨红旗,等.湖南省茧蜂记述.湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2000,26(5)：394-400
曾赞安,游兰韶,梁广文.寄生荔枝蒂蛀虫的刻绒茧蜂属一新种(膜翅目：茧蜂科).湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2007,33(1)：65-67
周梁镒,蒋时贤,黄明道.香蕉弄蝶绒茧蜂之记录.中华农业研究,1989,38(4)：468-470
祝汝佐.中国松毛虫寄生蜂志.昆虫与植病,1937,5(4-6)：56-103
祝汝佐,何俊华等.茧蜂科//中国科学院动物研究所,浙江农业大学等.天敌昆虫图册,第三号.北京：科学出版社,1978：49-65
Alam M M, Bennett F D, et Carl K. Biological control of Diatraea saccharalis (F.) in Barbados by Apanteles flavipes Cam. and Lixophaga diatraeae T. T. Entomophaga,1971,16(2): 151-158
Ashmead W H. Part 2.-Descriptions of new parasitic Hymenoptera//Dimmock G. Notes of parasitic Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington,1898,4: 155-171.
Ashmead W H. Classification of the Ichneumon flies, or the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1900,23(1206):1-220
Ashmead W H. Descriptions of new genera and species of Hymenoptera from the Philippine Islands. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1904,28(1387):127-158
Austin A D. Revision of the genus Buluka de Saeger (Hymenoptera:Braconidae: Microgastrinae). Systematic Entomology,1989,14(2):149-163
Austin A D. Revision of the enigmatic Australasian genus Miropotes Nixon (Hymenoptera: Braconidae:Microgastrinae), with comments on the phylogenetic importance of the female ovipositor system. Systematic Entomology,1990,15:43-68
Austin A D, et Dangerfield P C. Synopsis of Australasian Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), with a key to genera and description of new taxa. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 1992,6(1):1-76
Austin A D, et Dangerfield P C. Systematics of Australian and New Guinean Microplitis Forster and Snellenius Westwood (Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Microgastrinae), with a review of their biology and host relationships. Invertebrate Taxonomy,1993,7(5):1097-1166
Bartlett B R, Clausen C P, DeBach Paul, et al. Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds:A world review:Agriculture Handbook No.480. Washington, D. C. Agricultural Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture.1978.
Belshaw R, Fitton M, Herniou E, et al. A phylogenetic reconstruction of the Ichneumonoidea (Hymenoptera) based on the D2 variable region of 28S ribosomal RNA. Systematic Entomology,1998,23(2):109-123
Bhatnagar S P. Studies on Apanteles Forster (Vipionidae:parasitic Hymenoptera) from India. Indian Journal of Entomology,1950,10(2):133-203
Brethes J. Hymenopteres parasites del'Am erique meridionale. Annales Buenos Aires Museo Nacional de Historia Natur,1916,27:401-430
Burgess A F, et Crossman S S. Imported insect enemies of the gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth:Technical Bulletin. No.86. Washington, D. C.:United States Department of Agriculture,1929.
Cameron P. Hymenopterological notices. I. On some Hymenoptera parasitic in Indian injurious insects. Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, 1891,(4)4:182-194
Cameron P. On the Tenthredinidae and parasitic Hymenoptera collected in Baluchistan by Major C G. Nurse. Part I. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society,1906,17:89-107
Cameron P. On some African species of the subfamilies Exothecinae, Aphrastobraconinae, Cheloninae, Doryctinae, Cardiochilinae and Microgasterinae in the Royal Berlin Zoological Museum. Zeitschrift fur Naturwissenschaft,1910,81:433-450
Capek M. A new classification of the Braconidae (Hymenoptera) based on the cephalic structure of the final instar larva and biological evidence. Canadian Entomologist,1970,102: 846-875
Chen Y F, Shi M, Huang F, et al. Characterization of two genes of Cotesia vestalis polydnavirus and their expression patterns in the host Plutella xylostella. Journal of General Virology, 2007,88:3317-3322
Chen Y F, Shi M, Liu P C, et al. Characterization of an IκB-like Gene in Cotesia vestalis Polydnavirus. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology,2008,68:71-78
Chinwada P, Omwega C O, et Overholt W A. Stemborer research in Zimbabwe:Prospects for the establishment of Cotesia flavipes Cameron. Insect Science and its Application,2001, 21(4):327-334
Chou L Y. Notes on Apanteles (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) of Taiwan (I). Journal of Agricultural Research of China,1979,28(4):299-310
Chou L Y. A preliminary list of Braconidae (Hymenoptera) of Taiwan. Journal of Agricultural Research. China,1981,30(1):71-88
Chou L Y. A new species of Buluka (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) from Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Entomology,1985,5:85-88
Chou L Y. New records of six braconids (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) from Taiwan. Journal of Agricultural Research of China,1999,48(1):64-66
De Saeger H. Microgasterinae (Hymenoptera:Apocrita). Exploration du Parc National Albert. Mission G F. de Witte,1944,47:1-342
Dowton M, et Austin A D. Phylogenetic relationships among the microgastroid wasps (Hymenoptera:Braconidae):combined analysis of 16S and 28S rDNA genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,1998,10(3):354-366
Dowton M, Austin A D et Antolin M F.1998, Evolutionary relationships among the Braconidae (Hymenoptera:Ichneumonoidea) inferred from partial 16S rDNA gene sequences. Insect Molecular Biology,7(2):129-150
Fahringer J. Schwedisch-chinesische wissenschaftliche Expedition nach den nordwestlichen Provinzen Chinas,26. Hymenoptera.4. Braconidae Kirby. Arkiv foer Zoologi,1935, 27A(12)(1934):1-15
Fahringer J. Opuscula braconologica. Band 4. Palaearktischen Region. Lieferung 1-3. Opuscula braconologica. Wien:Fritz Wagner,1935 (1936).
Fahringer J. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Braconidenfauna Chinas. Arkiv foer Zoologi,1938, 30A(12):1-16
Forster A. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconiden. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens,1862,19:225-288
Gifford J R, et Mann G A. Biology, rearing and a trial release of Apanteles flavipes in the Florida Everglades to control the sugar cane borer. Journay of Economic Entomology, 1967,60:44-47
Hill M G. Analysis of the biological control of Mythimna separata (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) by Apanteles ruficrus (Braconidae:Hymenoptera) in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Ecology,1988,25:197-208
Kankare M et Shaw M R. Molecular phylogeny of Cotesia Cameron,1891 (Insecta: Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Microgastrinae) parasitoids associated with Melitaeini butterflies (Insecta:Lepidoptera:Nymphalidae:Melitaeini). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,2004,32(1):207-220
Long K D et van Achterberg C. Two new species of the genus Wilkinsonellus Mason (Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Microgastrinae) from northern Vietnam. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden,2003,77(10):221-227
Marsh P M. The braconid (Hymenoptera) parasites of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America,1979,72(6): 794-810
Marsh P M, Shaw S R, et Wharton R A. An identification manual for the North American genera of the family Braconidae (Hymenoptera):Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington. No.13. Washington, D. C.:The Entomological Society of Washington,1987.
Marshall T A. Monograph of British Braconidae. Part I. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,1885:1-280
Mason W R M.1981, The polyphyletic nature of Apanteles Foerster (Hymenoptera:Braconidae): A phylogeny and reclassification of Microgastrinae:Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada. No.115. Ottawa:The Entomological Society of Canada,1981.
Minamikawa J. On the Hymenopterous parasites of the tea-leafrollers found in Japan and Formosa. Mushi,1954,26:35-46
Mohyuddin A I, et Shah S. Biological control of Mythimna separata (Lep.:Noctuidae) in New Zealand and its bearing on biological control strategy. Entomophaga,1977,22(4):331-333
Muesebeck C F W. A revision of the North American species of ichneumon-flies belonging to the genus Apanteles. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1921,58: 483-576
Muesebeck C F W. A revision of the North American ichneumon-flies, belonging to the subfamilies Neoneurinae and Microgasterinae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1922,61(2436):1-76
Nixon G E J. A reclassification of the tribe Microgasterini (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series. Supplement,1965,2:1-284
Nixon G E J. The Indo-Australian species of the ultor-group of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series,1967, 21(1):1-34
Nixon G E J. A revision of the genus Microgaster Latreille (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series,1968,22:33-72
Nixon G E J. A revision of the n.w. European species of Microplitis Forster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series,1970, 25(1):1-30
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-westen European species of the laevigatus-gr oup of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1972, 61:701-743
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-western European species of the vitripennis, pallipes, octonarius, triangulator; fraternus; formosus, parasitellas, metacarpalis and circums criptus-gr oups of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1973,63:169-228
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-westen European species of the glomeratus-group of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1974, 64:453-524
Nixon G E J. A revision of the north-western European species of the merula, laeteus, vipio, ultor, ater, butalidis, popularis, carbonarius and validus-groups of Apanteles Forster (Hym.:Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1976,65:687-732
Papp J. A contribution of the Braconid fauna of Israel (Hymenoptera). Israel Journal of Entomology,1970,5:63-76
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), I. The species groups. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1976,68:251-274
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), Ⅱ. The laevigatus-group,1. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1978,70:265-301
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), III. The laevigatus-group,2. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1979,71:235-250
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgasterinae), Ⅳ. The lineipes-, obscurus- and ater-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1980,72:241-272
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), V. The lacteus-, longipalpis-, ultor-, butalidis- and vipio-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1981,73:263-291
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), VI. The laspeyresiella-, merula-,falcatus- and validus-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1982,74:255-267
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), VII. The carbonarius-, circumscriptus-,fraternus-,pallipes-, parasitellae-, vitripennis-, liparidis-, octonarius-and thompsoni-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1983,75:247-283
Papp J. Palaearctic species of Microgaster Latreille (= Microplitis Forster) with description of seven new species (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae). Entomologische Abhandlungen,1984a,47:95-140
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae) VIII. The metacarpalis,formosus,popularis and suevus-groups. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1984b,76:265-295
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae). Ⅸ. The glomeratus-group,1. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1986a,78:225-247
Papp J. First survey of the Glabromicroplitis Papp species of the Holarctic Region, with taxonomical remarks of three Microgaster Latreille species (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae). Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1986b,78: 249-253
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae), X. The glomeratus-group 2 and the cultellatus-group. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1987,79:207-258
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae).11. "Homologization" of the species-groups of Apanteles s.l. with Mason's generic taxa. Checklist of genera. Parasitoid/host list 1. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1988,80:145-175
Papp J. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae: Microgastrinae) Ⅻ. Supplement to the key of the glomeratus-group. Parasitoid/host list 2. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici,1990,81:159-203
Reinhard H. Beitrag zur Kenntniss einiger Braconiden-Gattungen. Funftes Stuck. XVI. Zur Gattung Microgaster, Latr. (Microgaster, Microplitis, Apanteles). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift,1880,24:353-370
Shi M, Chen Y F, Huang F, et al. Characterization of a novel gene encoding ankyrin repeat domain from Cotesia vestalis polydnavirus (CvBV). Virology,2008a,375:374-382
Shi M, Chen Y F, Yao Y, e al. Characterization of a protein tyrosine phosphatase gene CvBV202 from Cotesia vestalis polydnavirus (CvBV). Virus Genes,2008b,36:595-601
Short J R T. A grouping by larval characters of some species of the genus Apanteles (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,1953,44:327-332
Skoroszewski R W, et Hamburg H van. The release of Apanteles flavipes (Cameron) (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) against stalk-borers of maize and grain-sorghum in South Africa. Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa,1987,50:249-255
Sonan J. Three new species of parasitic Hymenoptera from Formosa. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Formosa. Taihoku,1942,32:217-220
Tanwar R K, et Varma A. Field evaluation of Cotesia flavipes Cameron (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Indonesian strain) against sugarcane stalk and internode borers. Journal of Biological Control,2001,15(2):127-131
Telenga N A. Microgasterinae//family Braconidae, subfamily Microgasterinae, subfamily Agathinae. Fauna of the U.S.S.R., Hymenoptera,5(4):Zoological Institute, new series No. 61. Translation. Jerusalem:Israel Program for Scientific Translation 1964 (1955):1-295.
Thomson C G. LII. Bidrag till Braconidernas Kannedom. Opuscula Entomologica,1895,20: 2141-2339
Tobias V I. Two new species of braconids from the genus Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) parasites of the moth Bucculatrix ulmella Z. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Moldav. SSR(Biol. Khim),1975,1975(3):60-63
Tobias V I. Microgastrinae//Medvedev G S. Keys to the insects of the European part of USSR, 3 (4) (Hymenoptera:Braconidae), Inc.52 Labombard Road North Lebanon, NH 03766, USA:Translation. Science Publishers,1986:605-883
Tobias V I. New taxa of Braconidae from Baltic amber (Hymenoptera). Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye,1987,66(4):845-859
van Achterberg C. A revision of the subfamily Zelinae auct. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae), Tijdschrift voor Entomologie,1979,122:241-479
Viereck H L. Descriptions of six new genera and twelve new species of Ichneumon-flies. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,1913,44(1974):639-648
Viereck H L. A list of families and subfamilies of the Ichneumon-flies in the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,1918,31:69-74
Walker A K, Kitching I J, et Austin A D. A reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships within the Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Cladistics,1990,6:291-306
Watanabe C. On some species of Braconidae from North China and Korea. Insecta Matsumurana,1935,10:43-51
Watanabe C. A contribution to the knowledge of the Braconid fauna of the Empire of Japan. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido (Imp.) University,1937a,42(1):1-188
Watanabe C. On some species of Braconidae from Manchoukuo (Contributions to the knowledge of the Braconid fauna of Manchoukuo, I). Insecta Matsumurana,1937b,12(1): 39-44
Watanabe C. Description of a new Apanteles-species bred from Dictyoploca japonica (Moore) Butler (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Insecta Matsumurana,1940a,15:51-52
Watanabe C. Hymenopterous parasites of the mulberry pyralid moth, Margaronia pyloalis Walker, in Japan (I). Insecta Matsumurana,1940b,14(2-3):85-94
Watanabe C. Descriptions of a new Apanteles-species bred from Anomis fimbriago Stephen in Manchoukuo. Insecta Matsumurana,1942a,16:169-170
Watanabe C. Descriptions of a new subspecies and an imperfectly known species of Apanteles from Nippon.(Hymenoptera:Braconidae) Insecta Matsumurana,1942b,16:147-150
Watanabe C. Braconidae of Shansi, China (Hymenoptera). Mushi,1950,21(2):19-27
Whitfield J B. The Nearctic species of Deuterixys Mason (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist,1985,61(1):60-67
Whitfield J B. Annotated checklist of the Microgastrinae of North America north of Mexico (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society,1995a,68(3): 245-262
Whitfield J B. Xanthapanteles, a new genus of Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) from South America. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington,1995b,97(4): 879-883
Whitfield J B. Microgastrinae//Wharton, R A, Marsh P M, et Sharkey M J. Manual of the New World genera of the family Braconidae (Hymenoptera):Special Publication of the International Society of Hymenopterists No. I. Washington, D. C.:The International Society of Hymenopterists,1997a:333-366.
Whitfield J B. Molecular and morphological data suggest a single origin of the polydnaviruses among braconid wasps. Naturwissenschaften,1997b,84(11):502-507
Whitfield J B, et Mason W R M. Mendesellinae, a new subfamily of braconid wasps (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) with a review of relationships within the microgastroid assemblage. Systematic Entomology,1994,19:61-76
Whitfield J B, et Wagner D L. Annotated key to the genera of Braconidae (Hymenoptera) attacking leafmining Lepidoptera in the Holarctic region. Journal of Natural History,1991, 25:733-754
Whitfield J B, Mardulyn P, Austin A D, et al. Phylogenetic relationships among microgastrine braconid wasp genera based on data from the 16S, COI and 28S genes and morphology. Systematic Entomology,2002,27(3):337-359
Wilkinson D S. A revision of the Indo-Australian species of the genus Apanteles (Hym. Bracon.). Part Ⅰ. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1928,19:79-105,109-146
Wilkinson D S. A revision of the Indo-Australian and Ethiopian species of the genus Microgaster (Hym. Bracon.). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 1929a,77:99-123
Wilkinson D S. New parasitic Hymenoptera and notes on other species. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1929b,20(1):103-114
Wilkinson D S. New species and host records of Ichneumonidae and Braconidae. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1930,21(2):147-158
Wilkinson D S. A revision of the Ethiopian species of the genus Apanteles (Hym. Bracon.). Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,1932,80:301-344
Wilkinson D S. On the identity of Apanteles carbonarius Wesmael, with the description of a new, closely-related, palaearctic species (Hym. Brac.). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London,1940, (B)9(9):157-164
Wilkinson D S. Description of Palaearctic species of Apanteles (Hymen., Braconidae). Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,1945,95:35-226
Williams D J M. The New World genus Lathrapanteles n.gen.:Phylogeny and placement in the Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera:Braconidae:Cotesini). Canadian Journal of Zoology,1985, 63:1962-1981
Williams D J M. Classification, phylogeny and zoogeographic studies of species of Sathon Mason (Hymenoptera:Braconidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae,1988,24:529-638
Wolcott G N. Insectae Borinquensis. A revised annotated check-list of the insects of Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico,1936,20:1-627
You L S, Xiong S L, et Wang Z D. Annotated list of Apanteles Foerster (Hym.:Braconidae) from China. Entomologica Scandinavica,1988b,19:35-42
Yu R X, Chen Y F, Chen X X, et al. Effects of venom/calyx fluid from the endoparasitic wasp Cotesia plutellae on the hemocytes of its host Plutella xylostella in vitro. J. Insect Physiol, 2007,53:22-29
Yu D S, van Achterberg K, et Horstmann K. World Ichneumonoidea 2004. Taxonomy, Biology, Morphology and Distribution. CD/DVD. Taxapad.2005, Vancouver, Canada,2005.