Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The deficiencies and pitfalls of rearing records are summarized by Shaw (1990: 453-455).Rather than relying upon catalogue listings, original references were sought.The most reliable records are considered to be those based upon extensive field studies or established by associated wasp and host remains.Next are literature records that are: (1) traceable to tangible evidence in collections (2) substantiated by some natural history observations, or (3) repeatedly and independently corroborated.Isolated reports that could not be traced to specimens are simply noted.New records for genera without previously reported host data are referred to reared voucher specimens.The morphological terminology is mostly that of Townes (1969).Anterior transverse carina and posterior transverse carina are used (respectively) for 'basal transverse carina' and 'apical transverse carina', epicnemial carina for 'prepectal carina', gena for 'temple', gonoforceps for 'clasper', hypopygium for 'female subgenital plate', laterotergite for 'epipleurum', occiput for 'postocciput', malar space for 'cheek', supra-antennal larly pentagonal shape of heresiarchines and other ichneumonines.The Callajoppa Group and the Trogus Group were raised to the level of subtribes, Callajoppina and Trogina, respectively.The Callajoppina consisted of Callajoppa, Catadelphus, Conocalama, Dimaetha (treated as Erythrojoppa Cameron by Heinrich), Gnamptopelta, Tmetogaster Hopper, and Tricyphus; the earlier inclusion (Heinrich, 1934) of Gathetus, Facydes, and Stirojoppa was reversed without comment.The Trogina was composed of
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sime et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: