Bioacoustics of Apanteles

1. Propodeum at most with a weakly defined areola and never with a costula ( Fig. 87d ); spiracle not entirely or in part enclosed by keels; propodeum to sides of areola with dull microsculpture or nearly smooth, or, if rather strongly rugose, then metacarp of fore wing hardly 1.5× longer than its distance from apex of marginal cell; small; dark-legged, with hind tibia deeply infuscate to blackish ( Fig. 89a ); tergites posterior to T2 always with a dull sheen............ 2 ( eublemmae -subgroup) - Propodeum usually with a distinct areola and costulae ( Fig. 8b ), sometimes, costulae absent; spiracle, frequently, only enclosed by posterior keels; if costula along with forks virtually absent, then surface of propodeum with much coarser rugosity; metacarp usually much longer than its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 2b )............................. 12 2 (1). Metacarp short, at most as long as pterostigma and no more than 2.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (e.g. Fig. 89g )......................................................................................... 3 - Metacarp long, usually distinctly longer than pterostigma and at least 3.0× as long as distance from apex of marginal cell (e.g. Fig. 87a )..................................................................................... 6 3 (2). Mesoscutum with characteristic dense, silvery pubescence which on posterior half becomes longer and silky (e.g. Fig. 89e ) ................................................................................................. 4 - Pubescence of mesoscutum shorter, of regular appearance ( Fig. 93d ).......................................... 5 4 (3). Propodeum 4.0× wider than long ( Fig. 89c ); penultimate flagellomere almost cubic; scutellum narrower posteriorly ( Fig. 89e )................................................................ A . cavitergita Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Propodeum 6.0× wider than long ( Fig. 97k ); penultimate flagellomere 1.4× longer than wide ( Fig. 97d ); scutellum wider posteriorly ( Fig. 97h )....................................................... A . setosus Liu & Chen, sp. nov. 5 (3). Vein cu-a of hind wing abruptly strongly curved at posterior half, distinctly longer than 1-1A ( Fig. 92h ); pterostigma small, 3.2× as long as its widest part ( Fig. 92h ); head less transverse in dorsal view ( Fig. 92d )................................................................................................. A. lineatella Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Vein cu-a of hind wing slightly curved, not longer than 1-1A; pterostigma large, 2.5× as long as its widest part ( Fig. 93b ); head more transverse in dorsal view ( Fig. 93e )............................. A. palliditegula Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 6(2). Ovipositor sheath shorter than length of hind tibia (e.g. Fig. 93a )............................................. 7 - Ovipositor sheath much longer, at least as long as length of hind tibia (e.g. Fig. 95d )............................. 9 7(6). T1 parallel-sided, less than 2.0× longer than hind width (e.g. Fig. 93f ); vein r of fore wing arising from middle of pterostigma (e.g. Fig. 93b )..................................................................................... 8 - T1 narrow, strongly converged from base, 3.0× longer than hind width ( Fig. 87g ); vein r of fore wing arising from apex side of pterostigma ( Fig. 87a )................................................... A. alticella Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 8(7). Head transverse in dorsal view, 2.2× as wide as long ( Fig. 93e ); antenna distinctly shorter than body length (0.8×), penultimate flagellomere cubic to slightly transverse; vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part strongly concave ( Fig. 93a )...................................................................... A. longiala Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Head less transverse in dorsal view, nearly 1.9× as wide as long ( Fig. 91d ); antenna weakly longer than body length, penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide; vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part straight ( Fig. 91f ).............................................................................. A. impunctus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 9(6). Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus just touching posterior ocelli; first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.6× wider than high ( Fig. 95b )........................................................................................ 10 - Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus weakly transecting posterior ocelli; first submarginal cell of hind wing subquadrate to quadrate......................................................................................... 11 10(9). Vein 1-R1 indistinctly shorter than pterostigma, 3.6× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 95a ).....; T2 4.3× wider than long in the middle, weakly curved into T3 apically ( Fig. 95e ); vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part straight ( Fig. 95b ).................................................... A. rectala Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Vein 1-R1 weakly longer than pterostigma, 4.3× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 88d ); T2 2.4× wider than long in the middle, straight apically ( Fig. 88e ); vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part slightly concave ( Fig. 88g ).............................................................. A. aphanoiugum Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 11(9). Areola on propodeum open anteriorly ( Fig. 90a ); basal width 2.0× wider than apical width ( Fig. 90b ); mesopleuron shiny, anterior parts with shallow, indefinite punctures................................... A. heichinensis Sonan, 1942 - Areola on propodeum closed anteriorly ( Fig. 96g ); basal width 1.4× wider than apical width ( Fig. 96g ); mesopleuron slightly shiny, anterior and upper parts dull with heavy, dense punctures ( Fig. 96h ).......... A. rhombos Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 12(1). Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part usually straight or slightly convex and with hairs.................. 13 - Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part usually concave, sometimes straight, and hairless................. 19 13(12). Metacarp short, 2.0–2.5× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Figs 10e , 104a 2 ); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus not touching posterior ocelli ( Fig. 10b ); mesonotum with sparse, deep punctures, shiny along the middle line, posterior part of imaginary notaulic courses without longitudinal striations ( Fig. 10c ).............. A. argiope Nixon, 1965 - Metacarp longer, at least 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 35d ); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus just touching posterior ocelli ( Fig. 35g ); mesonotum with heavy punctures, posterior part of imaginary notaulic courses with longitudinal striations.......................................................................... 14 14(13). Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part with a series of hairs ( Fig. 35c ); mesonotum with coarse strong punctures, obviously strongly aciculate between punctures ( Fig. 35e )................................. A. dryas Nixon, 1965 - Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part at most with some hardly invisible hairs ( Fig. 74g ); mesonotum with shallow punctures, without rugosity between punctures except punctures on the notaulic courses ( Fig. 84e ).................. 15 15(14). Hind coxa dark brown to black ( Fig. 84c ).............................................................. 16 - Hind coxa mostly or entirely yellow ( Fig. 28h ).......................................................... 17 16(15). Mesopleuron in oblique direction sufficiently hollowed out to form a discrete, linear sternaulus ( Fig. 84c ); mesoscutum shiny with a heavy, discrete punctation ( Fig. 84e ); eyes larger, closer on face ( Fig. 84i )........ A. usipetes Nixon, 1965 - Mesopleuron in oblique direction merely hollowed out in a manner common to most species ( Fig. 74d ); posterior end of notaulic courses indicated by a zone of shiny striate-punctation on mesoscutum ( Fig. 74h ); eyes smaller, widely separated on face ( Fig. 74e )............................................................... A. saravus Nixon, 1965 17(15). Body yellowish brown; propodeum with complete areola, costula present, posterio-lateral field distinctly transverse................................................................................. A. bakeri Wilkinson, 1932 - Body at most yellowish on basal tergites; propodeum incomplete areolate, costula absent or indistinct.............. 18 18(17). Mesonotum dull with strong, dense punctures, coarser at posterior end of notaulic courses ( Fig. 28g ); eyes (in dorsal view) about 2.0× longer than temple ( Fig. 28d )...................................... A. crassus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Mesonotum shiny with sparse punctures, impunctate medio-apically ( Fig. 4h ); eyes (in dorsal view) about 3.0× longer than temple ( Fig. 4d )......................................................... A. ambultor Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 19(12). Ovipositor sheath longer than 1.6× length of hind tibia.................................................... 20 - Ovipositor sheath shorter than 1.5× length of hind tibia................................................... 24 20(19). Propodeum without costula.......................................................................... 21 - Propodeum with more or less obvious costula........................................................... 22 21(20). Hind femur yellow ( Fig. 15a ); propodeum without median keel and areola incomplete ( Fig. 15e )............................................................................................ A. bialtus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Hind femur brown to black ( Fig. 41a ); propodeum with a median keel reaching to nearly middle part and areola complete but rather small ( Fig. 41d ).................................................. A. fundum Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 22(20). Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus far beyond posterior ocelli............................................. 23 - Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus virtually transecting posterior ocelli ( Fig. 5c )..... A. amotus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 23(22). Disc of mesonotum without longitudinal striations at its posterior part ( Fig. 20c ); T2 3.8× wider than long in the middle ( Fig. 20b ); hind femur dark brown ( Fig. 20a )...................................... A. cannabis Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Disc of mesonotum with distinct longitudinal striations at its posterior part; T2 1.8× wider than long in the middle; hind femur yellow.......................................................................................................................................................... A. petilicaudium Song & Chen, 2002 24(19). T1 weakly to distinctly widening posteriorly............................................................ 25 - T1 parallel-sided, or slightly converged towards apex, or distinctly wedge-shaped............................... 27 25(24). Postero-lateral areas of propodeum bounded externally by a keel, not always well defined, lying parallel to lateral propodeal keel and forming a narrow, longitudinal zone with it ( Fig. 21d ); pterostigma decidedly short, broad, 2.3× as long as its widest part ( Fig. 21h ).................................................................. A. carpatus (Say, 1836) - Postero-lateral areas of propodeum not bounded externally by a keel ( Fig. 36g ); pterostigma long, narrow, 2.8–3.2× as long as its widest part ( Fig. 36b ).......................................................................... 26 26(25). T2 nearly as long as T3 ( Fig. 36g ); hind coxa and femur bright yellow ( Fig. 36g ); ovipositor sheath 0.7× longer than length of hind tibia ( Fig. 36h ).................................................... A. expansus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - T2 distinctly shorter, 0.6× length of T3 ( Fig. 18h ); hind coxa and femur bright brown to black ( Fig. 18h ); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia or slightly longer ( Fig. 18f )............................ A. brunnistigma Abdinbekova, 1969 27(24). Ovipositor sheath not or hardly longer than hind basitarsus................................................. 28 - Ovipositor sheath at least distinctly longer than hind basitarsus, usually much longer............................ 35 28(27). Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 29 - Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 31 29(28). Vein 1-CU1 of fore wing forming virtually a straight line with vein cu-a ( Fig. 39h ); temple very coarsely rugose ( Fig. 39d ); scutellum with large punctures along sides ( Fig. 39b ); T1 short, more or less parallel-sided ( Figs. 39f , 104j )............................................................................................. A. folia Nixon, 1965 - Vein 1-CU1 of fore wing forming an angle with vein cu-a at their junction ( Fig. 31b )............................ 30 30(29). Hind tarsomere 4 distinctly shorter than 5; metacarp rather short, about 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Figs. 31b , 104g 1 ); hind wing broad, length of 1-M distinctly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and apex of vannal lobe ( Fig. 31c ).......................................................... A. demades Nixon, 1965 - Hind tarsomere 4 hardly shorter than 5; metacarp fully 6.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 75a ); hind wing narrower, length of 1-M slightly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and apex of vannal lobe ( Fig. 75i )............................................................................. A. sartamus Nixon, 1965 31(28). T1 abruptly narrowed from turned-over part towards apex ( Fig. 34g )......................................... 32 - T1 only slightly narrowed posteriorly ( Fig. 66f )......................................................... 34 32(31). Turned-over part of T1 smooth, highly polished ( Fig. 42i ); scutellum shiny, polished, at most with indefinite punctures laterally ( Fig. 42g ).................................................................................... 33 - Turned-over part of T1 not shiny, strongly rugose entirely ( Fig. 34g ); scutellum slightly shiny with shallow punctures entirely ( Fig. 34f ).......................................................... A. distributa Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 33(32). Ovipositor sheath hardly 0.8× as long as length of hind basitarsus ( Fig. 42e ); vein 1-R1 2.8× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 42a ); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus virtually transecting posterior ocelli ( Fig. 42d )............................................................................ A. fuscidentalis Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Ovipositor sheath as long as length of hind basitarsus ( Fig. 47a ); vein 1-R1 4.6× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 47b ); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus not touching posterior ocelli ( Fig. 47f )...................................................................................................... A. javensis Rohwer, 1919 34(31). Head wider (1.1×) than mesoscutum; face rather transverse, 0.6× as high as wide ( Fig. 66c ); penultimate flagellomere subcubic.................................................................. A. plureseta Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Head narrower (0.9×) than mesoscutum; face less transverse, 0.8× as high as wide ( Fig. 72d ); penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide........................................................... A. salsala Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 35(27). Ovipositor sheath much shorter than hind tibia.......................................................... 36 - Ovipositor sheath at least about 3/4 length of hind tibia................................................... 41 36(35). Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 37 - Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 40 37(36). Hind femur black ( Fig. 52a ); pterostigma with basal whitish spot ( Fig. 52j ); scutellum strongly rugose-punctate as mesonotum ( Fig. 52e )........................................................... A. longicoxa Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Hind femur yellow; pterostigma without basal whitish spot; scutellum at most shallowly punctate.................. 38 38(37). Most parts of metasoma, apical half of hind coxa, and scape with pedicel of antenna bright yellow ( Fig. 37a ); hind femur much thinner, 3.6× longer than wide ( Fig. 37a ); inner spurs of hind tibia long, 3/5 length of hind basitarsus................................................................................ A. flavibasalis Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Whole body brown to dark brown; hind femur thicker, at most 3.0× longer than wide; inner spurs of hind tibia shorter, 2/5 length of hind basitarsus............................................................................ 39 39(38). Disc of mesonotum with shallow punctures disappearing at large posterior part, interspaces not smaller than diameter of puncture ( Fig. 59b ); first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.5× wider than high ( Fig. 59h ); r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at junction ( Fig. 59a )............................................. A. muscosalis Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Disc of mesonotum with heavy, coarse punctures, becoming coarser and confluent along notaulic courses and confluent to forming fine longitudinal striations at posterior part ( Fig. 14d ); first submarginal cell of hind wing nearly quadrate ( Fig. 14e ); r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction ( Fig. 14a )........................... A. bannaensis Song & Chen, 2001 40(36). T1 strongly constricted from base ( Fig. 7f ); face rugulose or striate-punctate ( Fig. 7h ); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus virtually transecting posterior ocelli ( Fig. 7e ).................................. A. annosus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - T1 parallel-sided, slightly constricted at apical third ( Fig. 6i ); face finely punctate ( Fig. 6c ); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus not touching posterior ocelli ( Fig. 6b )................................. A. angustus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 41(35). Basal several flagellomeres reddish yellow, elsewhere blackish brown ( Fig. 71a )............................... 42 - Flagellomeres evenly black or brown.................................................................. 43 42(41). Vein r:2-SR = 1.7:1.5, indistinctly angled at junction ( Fig. 71b ); T2 nearly triangular ( Fig. 71f ); hind coxa, hind trochanter, and hind femur reddish yellow ( Fig. 71a )................................... A. raviantenna Chen & Song, 2004 - Vein r:2-SR = 1.9:1, distinctly angled at junction ( Fig. 86b ); T2 nearly rectangular ( Fig. 86h ); hind coxa blackish at basal 2/3, reddish yellow at apical 1/3 ( Fig. 86a )....................................... A. wuyiensis Song & Chen, 2002 43(41). Pterostigma pallid with a darker border, or rarely, yellowish................................................ 44 - Pterostigma evenly brown or utmost with whitish basal spot................................................ 77 44(43). Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 45 - Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 60 45(44). Surface of propodeum with much coarser rugosity....................................................... 46 - Propodeum nearly smooth, or, with a dull microsculpture, or, at most weakly rugose............................ 48 46(45). T1 parallel-sided, never constricted apically ( Fig. 77f ); medial keel on propodeum distinct and long ( Fig. 77f ); inner margin of eyes distinctly converged towards apex ( Fig. 77g )....................... A. semicarinatus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - T1 slightly to strongly constricted apically; medial keel on propodeum absent or shorter; inner margin of eyes parallel-sided or subparallel-sided................................................................................ 47 47(46). Areola on propodeum complete with a medial keel basally ( Fig. 22c ); mesonotum with heavy striate-punctation at posterior end of notaulic courses ( Fig. 22h ); vertex between eye and posterior ocellus dull with dense and strong puncture ( Fig. 22d )........................................................................ A. carssus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Areola on propodeum incomplete and indefinite ( Fig. 70d ); mesonotum without rugosity and longitudinal striations at posterior end of notaulic courses ( Fig. 70g ); vertex between eye and posterior ocellus shiny with extremely shallow punctures ( Fig. 70c )............................................................. A. radocoxa Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 48(45). T1 hardly narrowed at apex, parallel-sided or almost parallel-sided.......................................... 49 - T1 distinctly narrowed at apex....................................................................... 52 49(48). T2 not sharply angled laterally, angled at about 45 degrees; scutellum highly polished, more narrowed and conically raised apically..................................................................... A. leptoura Cameron, 1909 - T2 very sharply angled laterally, angled at about 30 degrees; scutellum flattened and with vague punctation, less conically raised and less narrowed apically..................................................................... 50 50(49). Ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia; spines along upper part of outer side of hind tibia numerous, closer............................................................................. A. tachardiae Cameron, 1913 - Ovipositor sheath not longer than hind tibia; spines along upper part of outer side of hind tibia fewer, sparser......... 51 51(50). Distance between posterior ocelli distinctly greater than distance between one of them and eye-margin....................................................................................... A. machaeralis Wilkinson, 1928 - Distance between posterior ocelli shorter than distance between one of them and eye-margin ( Fig. 16c )........................................................................................... A. bisulcata Cameron, 1909 52(48). Each side of imaginary areola on propodeum polished, smooth, there being no trace of areola or keel behind spiracle.. 53 - Each side of areola on propodeum with rugosity at least in the place normally occupied by costula, there being at least parts a keel behind spiracle ( Fig. 45d ).............................................. A. importunus Wilkinson, 1928 53(52). Ovipositor sheath about 1.5× longer than hind tibia....................................................... 54 - Ovipositor sheath at most 1.3× longer than hind tibia..................................................... 55 54(53). Mesoscutum distinctly transverse; penultimate flagellomere not or hardly longer than wide; T1 relatively shorter.................................................................................. A. angaleti Muesebeck, 1956 - Mesoscutum nearly as long as wide ( Fig. 53g ); penultimate flagellomere about 1.6× longer than wide; T1 much longer ( Fig. 53f )................................................................. A. longidiscus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 55(53). T2 shorter than half length of T3 ( Fig. 67h ); tergites posterior to T2 matte; ovipositor sheath much wider ( Fig. 67a ).......................................................................... A. prominens Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - T2 usually over half length of T3 ( Fig. 40i ); tergites posterior to T2 shiny; ovipositor sheath narrower ( Fig. 9f )....... 56 56(55). T2 half length of T3 ( Fig. 63h ); propodeum densely, rather evenly rugose ( Fig. 63c )............ A. oritias Nixon, 1965 - T2 distinctly over half length of T3; propodeum widely polished............................................ 57 57(56). Ovipositor sheath 0.8× as long as length of hind tibia ( Fig. 40c ); hind femur relatively thin, 3.4× longer than wide; penultimate flagellomere indistinctly longer than wide................................ A. fraxinus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Ovipositor sheath at least as long as length of hind tibia ( Fig. 13a ); hind femur relatively thick, at most 3.0× longer than wide ( Fig. 13a ); penultimate flagellomere distinctly (at least 1.4×) longer than wide................................. 58 58(57). Vein cu-a of hind wing slightly longer than 1-1A ( Fig. 9g ); sulcus between T2 and T3 indistinct ( Fig. 9f ); face more transverse ( Fig. 9i )........................................................ A. aphanofossa Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Vein cu-a of hind wing shorter than 1-1A; sulcus between T2 and T3 distinct; face less transverse.................. 59 59(58). Penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide; mesonotum without punctures at apex, no any trace of rugosity between punctures at posterior end of notaulic courses ( Fig. 49f ); hind wing broad, length of 1-M distinctly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and apex of vannal lobe ( Fig. 49c )................. A. lateroglabris Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Penultimate flagellomere 2.4× longer than wide; rugulose between punctures at posterior end of notaulic courses on mesonotum ( Fig. 13f ); hind wing less broad, length of 1-M indistinctly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and the apex of vannal lobe ( Fig. 13h )......................................... A. attenuator Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 60(44). Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 61 - Hind femur dark brown to black...................................................................... 69 61(60). Body entirely red ( Fig. 19a ); ovipositor sheath 1.5× longer than length of hind tibia; ocelli larger ( Fig. 19c ).................................................................................... A. bulbus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Body dark brown to black; ovipositor sheath distinctly less than 1.5× length of hind tibia, usually as long as length of hind tibia; ocelli smaller ( Fig. 62e )........................................................................ 62 62(61). Claws strongly developed, strongly curved; posterior tangent to anterior ocellus far before posterior ocelli ( Fig. 61i ); areola rather small and indistinct ( Fig. 61h )................................... A. ocellisublimus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Claws poorly developed; posterior tangent to anterior ocellus closer to posterior ocelli; areola usually large and distinct.. ................................................................................................ 63 63(62). Scutellum usually quite densely striate-punctate......................................................... 64 - Scutellum polished or at most with scattered few indefinite punctures along sides................................. ................................................................................................ 66 64(63). T2+T3 yellow or reddish yellow; ovipositor sheath about 2/3 the length of hind tibia; temple with considerable rugosity................................................................................ A. mamitus Nixon, 1965 - Tergites dark brown entirely; ovipositor sheath at least about as long as hind tibia; temple at most with only trace of sculpture............................................................................................ 65 65(64). Ovipositor sheath about as long as hind tibia; hind coxa dull, evenly, finely, densely rugose; metacarp about 4.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell............................................... A. hemara Nixon, 1965 - Ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia; hind coxa shiny, not rugose-punctate; metacarp reaching near apex of marginal cell................................................................. A. significans Walker, 1860 66(63). Mesoscutum usually coarsely rugose, the lines of notaulices broad and very coarsely punctate-rugose ( Fig. 38c ); head above with coarse shiny sculpture ( Fig. 38d ); propodeum rather long ( Fig. 38a )..................... A. florus Nixon, 1965 - Mesoscutum showing fine rugosity, the lines of notaulices not that rugose; head above without that coarse sculpture; propodeum shorter..................................................................................... 67 67(66). Hind tarsus pale yellow ( Fig. 68a ); fore wing weakly brownish ( Fig. 68f ); T1 relatively shorter ( Fig. 68i ).............................................................................................. A. psenes Nixon, 1965 - Hind tarsus brownish or blackish throughout; fore wing hyaline; T1 longer.................................... 68 68(67). T2 longer, at most 2.7× wider than long in the middle ( Fig. 24d ); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia combined basitarsus ( Fig. 24a ); vein r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction ( Fig. 24f )................. A. changhingensis Chu, 1937 - T2 shorter, at least 3.1× wider than long in the middle; ovipositor sheath slightly shorter than hind tibia; vein r of fore wing distinctly angled with 2-SR............................................... A. brevicarinis Song & Chen, 2002 69(60). T1 parallel-sided.................................................................................. 70 - T1 distinctly converged towards apex................................................................. 72 70(69). Costulae on propodeum poorly defined, more or less wanting ( Fig. 3d ); ovipositor sheath much wider............... 71 - Costulae on propodeum well defined ( Fig. 30g ); ovipositor sheath narrow ( Fig. 30a )............ A. cypris Nixon, 1965 71(70). Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction; posterior tangent to anterior ocellus far beyond posterior ocelli; metacarp 4.8× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell....................... A. longiantenna Chen & Song, 2004 - Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at junction ( Fig. 3b ); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus touching posterior ocelli ( Fig. 3g ); metacarp nearly 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 3b )............................................................................................. A. altus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 72(69). Fore tarsus very short, tarsomere 2 hardly longer than wide; fore tarsomere 5 with a distinct spine............................................................................................... A. sodalis ( Haliday, 1834 ) - Fore tarsus normal, tarsomere 2 very obviously longer than wide; fore tarsomere 5 without spine.................. 73 73(72). Costulae on propodeum well-defined.................................................................. 74 - Costulae on propodeum poorly defined, more or less wanting.............................................. 76 74(73). Antenna rather short, penultimate flagellomere hardly longer than wide; metacarp relatively short, about 4.0 to 5.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell; ovipositor sheath at most as long as hind tibia......................... 75 - Antenna longer, penultimate flagellomere about 1.5× longer than wide; metacarp longer, 6.3× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell; ovipositor sheath one-and-a-quarter times longer than hind tibia............................................................................................... A. cavatithoracica Chen & Yang, 2001 75(74). Pterostigma merely slightly paler medially ( Fig. 76j ); ovipositor sheath about as long as hind tibia ( Figs 76a, h ); face more transverse, 0.7× as high as wide, with small, even punctures ( Fig. 76e )......... A. scrobiculatus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Pterostigma pellucid entirely ( Fig. 81d ); ovipositor sheath distinctly slightly shorter than hind tibia; face less transverse, 0.8× as high as wide, shallowly coarsely punctate ( Fig. 81e ).............................. A. taragamae Viereck, 1912 76(73). Vertex behind ocelli smooth with extremely fine, transversal aciculation ( Fig. 26e ); ovipositor sheath slightly longer than hind tibia ( Fig. 26a ); metacarp longer, nearly 6.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Figs. 26f , 104e )..................................................................................... A. clita Nixon, 1965 – Vertex behind ocelli shallowly punctate, without transversal aciculation ( Fig. 23e ); ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia ( Fig. 23a ); metacarp shorter, about 4.5× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 23f )........................................................................................ A. cerberus Nixon, 1965 77(43). Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 78 - Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 83 78(77). Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 79 - Hind femur dark brown to black...................................................................... 81 79(78). Vertex between eye and posterior ocellus slightly shiny with fine punctures ( Fig. 69d ); areola incomplete (open anteriorly) with U-shaped apex ( Fig. 69g ); vein r of fore wing perpendicular to pterostigma ( Fig. 69b )................................................................................................ A. quadra Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Vertex between eye and posterior ocellus shiny with extremely shallow punctures; areola complete with V-shaped apex; vein r of fore wing strongly oblique outwards............................................................... 80 80(79). Punctures on mesopleuron not rugose ( Fig. 27d ); antenna about as long as body length, penultimate flagellomere 1.3× longer than wide ( Fig. 27a ); first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.4× wider than high ( Fig. 27f )...................................................................................................... A. cocotis Wilkinson, 1934 - Punctures somewhat rugulose on and above sternaulus of mesopleuron ( Fig. 51b ); antenna distinctly shorter than body length, penultimate flagellomere weakly transverse; first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.7× wider than high ( Fig. 51d )........................................................................... A. limus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 81(78). Pterostigma brown with basal spot and slightly pale apically ( Fig. 2e ); penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide..................................................................... A. albummacula Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Pterostigma light brown without basal spot; penultimate flagellomere cubic or just longer than wide................ 82 82(81). Propodeum with a complete areola ( Fig. 56f ); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia; T2 subtriangular, 3.3× wider than long in the middle, strongly curved into T3 apically ( Fig. 56f )..................... A. magastigma Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Propodeum without areola, somewhat depressed medially ( Fig. 1f ); ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia (as long as metasoma); T2 rather transverse, 5.0–6.0× wider than long in the middle, not curved into T3 apically ( Fig. 1b )........................................................................ A. adoxophyesi Minamikawa, 1954 83(77). Temple very sharply punctate-striate ( Fig. 11g ); tergites with dull, satin-like sheen ( Fig. 11e ); ovipositor sheath wide, slightly shorter than hind tibia; T1 short, subquadrate ( Fig. 11e ).............................. A. aristaeus Nixon, 1965 - Temple shiny with indistinct punctation................................................................ 84 84(83). T2, or/and, T3 yellow to reddish yellow, obviously different from remaining tergites in colour ( Fig. 52h )............ 85 - T2 and T3 brown to black, colour as the remaining tergites................................................. 87 85(84). Hind femur black, in sharp contrast with the pale-yellow hind trochanter ( Fig. 52a ); T3 3.0× longer than T2 ( Fig. 52h ); tegula bright yellow ( Fig. 52e )................................................... A. longicoxa Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Hind femur yellow entirely, or sometimes dark apically; T3 at most 2.0× longer than T2; tegula brown to black....... 86 86(85). Hind coxa yellow ( Fig. 57f ); posterior three fields of propodeum shiny and smooth without carinae ( Fig. 57d ); face finely punctate ( Fig. 57h ).......................................................... A. masoni Chen & Song, 2004 - Hind coxa brown to black ( Fig. 62g ); posterior three fields of propodeum usually shiny, unsculptured except for some rather strong secondary carinae ( Fig. 62f ); face with very superficial punctation ( Fig. 62h )........ A. opacus ( Ashmead, 1905 ) 87(84). T1 elongate, gradually narrowed from base towards apex, more or less wedge-shaped, or, converged from middle or beyond middle of T1, its horizontal part distinctly to considerably longer than wide................................... 88 - T1 shorter, never obviously wedge-shaped, frequently markedly to indistinctly narrowed posteriorly................ 93 88(87). Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 89 - Hind femur brown to black.......................................................................... 91 89(88). Pterostigma very broad, 2.3× as long as its widest part ( Figs. 43b , 104k ); costula poorly defined ( Fig. 43e ); spines along upper part of outside of hind tibia strong, very dense................................ A. galleriae Wilkinson, 1932 - Pterostigma narrow, at least 2.6× as long as its widest part; costula strongly defined; spines along upper part of outside of hind tibia weak and sparse.......................................................................... 90 90(89). Vein r of fore wing arising from apex of pterostigma, 1.3× longer than 2-SR ( Fig. 48e ); ovipositor sheath 1.25× longer than hind tibia; postero-lateral area of propodeum bounded externally by a keel, not always well defined, lying parallel to lateral propodeal keel and forming a narrow, longitudinal zone with it ( Fig. 48c )....... A. latericarinatus Song & Chen, 2001 - Vein r of fore wing arising from middle of pterostigma, 2.2× longer than 2-SR ( Fig. 33a ); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia; postero-lateral area of propodeum not bounded externally by a keel ( Fig. 33c ).......... A. dissimile Nixon, 1965 91(88). Claws strongly developed; pterostigma dark yellowish brown, without a small whitish basal spot ( Fig. 83h ).................................................................................. A. unguifortis Song & Chen, 2004 - Claws not developed; pterostigma brown, with a small whitish basal spot...................................... 92 92(91). Pterostigma much smaller, 3.2× as long as its widest part ( Fig. 82b ); first submarginal cell of hind wing much wider, 1.8× wider than high ( Fig. 82g ); T2 distinctly curved into T3 ( Fig. 82f )................... A. tenuis Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Pterostigma much larger, 2.5× as long as its widest part ( Fig. 64b ); first submarginal cell of hind wing distinctly narrower ( Fig. 64f ); T2 straight apically ( Fig. 64g )................................. A. pachycarinatus Song & Chen, 2002 93(87). Hind femur blackish brown to black................................................................... 94 - Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 97 94(93). Three posterior fields on propodeum rugose; pterostigma with small whitish basal spot.......................... 95 - Three posterior fields on propodeum smooth, at most indistinctly weakly rugulose; pterostigma without whitish basal spot ................................................................................................ 96 95(94). Horizontal part of T1 as long as wide across the hump ( Fig. 29c ); scutellum with mere small indefinite punctures ( Fig. 29b ); three posterior fields on propodeum with strong transverse carinae ( Fig. 29g )............... A. cyprioides Nixon, 1965 - Horizontal part of T1 1.5× longer than wide across the hump ( Fig. 54d ); punctures on scutellum coarse, strong ( Fig. 54f ); three posterior fields on propodeum shiny with irregular carinae ( Fig. 54d )........................................................................................................... A. longirostris Chen & Song, 2004 96(94). Ultimate flagellomere not shrunken abruptly; vein r of fore wing strongly curved outwards ( Fig. 60b ).......................................................................................... A. nixoni Song & Chen, 2002 - Ultimate flagellomere shrunken abruptly; vein r of fore wing somewhat curved inwards ( Fig. 44b )........................................................................................ A. gracilicorne Song & Chen, 2004 97(93). Hind femur slightly brownish ( Fig. 46h ); scutellum dull with rugulose punctures entirely ( Fig. 46c ); metacarp 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Fig. 46b )............................. A. jasmine Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Hind femur bright yellow; scutellum shiny smooth or with indefinite punctures laterally; metacarp at least 4.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell................................................................... 98 98(97). T1 parallel-sided or indistinctly converged apically....................................................... 99 - T1 slightly to strongly converged apically............................................................. 103 99(98). Lateral polished field of scutellum reaching over half length of scutellum; hind coxa black...................... 100 - Lateral polished field of scutellum reaching not over half length of scutellum ( Fig. 55c ); hind coxa evenly reddish yellow ( Fig. 55g )................................................................. A. lunata Song & Chen, 2004 100(99). Anterio-medial part of T3 weakly rugulose or punctulate-reticulate as T2 ( Fig. 12i ); costulae not clearly indicated ( Fig. 79e )........................................................................................... 101 - T3 smooth entirely ( Fig. 73d ); costulae well defined ( Fig. 73d )............................................ 102 101(100). Face transverse and less strongly punctate; metasoma 1.2× as long as mesosoma; first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.6× wider than high......................................................... A. aspersus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Face less transverse and strongly punctate ( Fig. 12g ); metasoma nearly as long as mesosoma ( Fig. 12a ); first submarginal cell of hind wing one-and-a-third times wider than high ( Fig. 12h )............... A. stigmaium Liu & Chen , sp. nov. 102(100). Ovipositor sheath 1.3× longer than hind tibia ( Fig. 73a ); horizontal part of T1 with fairly distinct, polished, medial trough ( Fig. 73d ); wings hyaline with the setae of median cell colourless ( Fig. 73e )............. A. salutifer Wilkinson, 1931 - Ovipositor sheath at most slightly longer than hind tibia ( Fig. 25a ); horizontal part of T1 without distinct medial trough ( Fig. 25g ); wings weakly brownish, the setae of median cell darkened ( Fig. 25b )................... A. chloris Nixon, 1965 103(98). Scutellum rather convex ( Fig. 17d ); pterostigma rather large, 2.3× as long as its widest part ( Fig. 17b ); temple rather short ( Fig. 17g )............................................................ A. brevitempus Liu & Chen , sp. nov. - Scutellum less convex; pterostigma not that large; temple longer........................................... 104 104(103). Ovipositor sheath distinctly longer, almost 1.5× longer than hind tibia; ovipositor sheath wide............................................................................................... A. stictipes Chen & Song, 2004 - Ovipositor sheath shorter, at most 1.3× longer than hind tibia; ovipositor sheath narrower....................... 105 105(104). Three posterior fields on propodeum smooth........................................................... 106 - Three posterior fields on propodeum rugose........................................................... 109 106(105). Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at the meeting ( Fig. 32b ); metacarp fully 6.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell ( Figs. 32b , 104h ).................................................... A. diocles Nixon, 1965 - Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing indistinctly angled at the meeting; metacarp at most 5.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell.................................................................................... 107 107(106). Flagellomeres 12–15 about 1.6–1.7× longer than wide; vein r of fore wing perpendicular to pterostigma............ 108 - Flagellomeres 12–15 about 1.2–1.3× longer than wide; vein r of fore wing curved outwards ( Fig. 65b ).................................................................................... A. pellucipterus Song & Chen, 2001 108(107). Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus just before posterior ocelli ( Fig. 85c ); face quadrate ( Fig. 85h ); inner spurs of hind tibia hardly half length of hind basitarsus.......................................... A. verticalis Song & Chen, 2004 - Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus slightly transecting posterior ocelli ( Fig. 58f ); face transverse, 0.8× as high as wide ( Fig. 58b ); inner spurs of hind tibia 3/5 length of hind basitarsus................................ A. medon Nixon, 1965 109(105). T2 4.2× wider than long in the middle ( Fig. 50d ); vein r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at junction ( Fig. 50b ); carinae on posteral-lateral field of propodeum oblique ( Fig. 50g )...................... A. latisulca Chen & Song, 2004 - T2 2.5× wider than long in the middle ( Fig. 8f ); vein r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction ( Fig. 8i ); carinae on posterallateral field of propodeum nearly horizontal ( Fig. 8b ).............................. A. ansata Song & Chen, 2004