A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart Author Trietsch, Carolyn Author Mikó, István Author Deans, Andrew R. text European Journal of Taxonomy 2019 2019-02-28 502 1 60 journal article 28498 10.5852/ejt.2019.502 0ff4f2ea-dc22-4d23-aa8d-12be8542e9aa 2581898 90DC9D26-DAF0-4C88-9800-4FB10B7CBE9F Aphanogmus origenus ( Kieffer, 1913 ) Figs 6–7 Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913b : 10 , 12, ♂ , ♀ . MNHN. Keyed. Calliceras origena – Kieffer, 1914c : 78 , 102. Generic transfer, description, keyed. Ceraphron origenus – Risbec 1950 : 552 . Keyed. Aphanogmus origenus – Dessart 1966a : 10 . Generic transfer, description, lectotype designation. Material examined Lectotype TANZANIA • ♀ of Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913 , new combination Aphanogmus origenus in Dessart (1966a) ; “ Mont Kilimandjaro : lisiére supérieure de la forêt auprés du Bismarckhügel, entre 2.700 et 2.800 m . d’altitude, 2 avril 1912 (st. no 71)” ( Kieffer 1913b: 12 ); MNHN EY22436 , EY22437 , EY25358 . Paralectotypes TANZANIA : 2 ♀♀ ; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY25352 • 1 ♂ , 1 ♀ , syntypes of Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913 , identified as Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 ; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY22435 , EY25350 • 1 ♀ ; same data as for the lectotype; MNHN EY25357 . Distribution Afrotropical. Fig. 6. The two Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913 (male and female) syntype specimens that Dessart determined to be Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858 . A . Lateral habitus of the male specimen in ethanol (MNHN EY25350). B . Male metasoma (MNHN EY22435). C . Close up of the male metasoma with genitalia showing (MNHN EY22435). D . Female specimen in ethanol (MNHN EY25350). Comments This species was originally described as Ceraphron origenus by Kieffer (1913b) from a series of male and female specimens. According to Dessart (1966a) , the original syntypic series consisted of five Fig. 7. A . Aphanogmus origenus (Kieffer, 1913) , lectotype, ♀, lateral view (MNHN EY25358). B . Left antenna of the female lectotype (MNHN EY22436). C . The last Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913 , paralectotype that Dessart determined to be a different species of Aphanogmus , possibly a new species (MNHN EY25357). females and one male. However, upon reviewing the specimens himself, Dessart found that the six specimens actually belonged to three different Aphanogmus species ( Dessart 1966a ). Dessart identified the male and one female specimen as Aphanogmus fumipennis based on antennal characters and the male genitalia ( Fig. 6 ). He made a slide preparation (prép. no. 6505/06) of the male metasoma and genitalia (MNHN EY22435), and appears to have left the remaining bleached fragments of the male in an ethanol vial with the female specimen (MNHN EY25350). In looking at the other syntypes , Dessart found that three of the remaining females belonged to the same species ( Fig. 7 A–B). Rather than synonymize Ceraphron origenus with Aphanogmus fumipennis , he chose a lectotype and paratypes from these three females to represent a new combination, Aphanogmus origenus , then re-described the species and noted that the male is unknown ( Dessart 1966a ). He dissected the female lectotype and made two slide preparations (prép. no. 6504/261), with one slide containing the left antenna (MNHN EY22436), and the other containing the left fore wing and hind wing (MNHN EY22437). The rest of the female lectotype is stored in an ethanol vial (MNHN EY25358). Two female paralectotypes are stored together in another ethanol vial (MNHN EY25352). These two specimens were not imaged. The state of the last female paralectotype remains uncertain ( Fig. 7C ). Dessart (1966a: 11) provided the following comments: “également dépourvue de rebord périphérique au scutellum mais à antennes non massuées, représente sans doute une nouvelle espèce malheureusement en trop mauvais état pour être bien décrite”. Dessart determined that the specimen was an Aphanogmus and not a Ceraphron , and based on differences in the antenna and scutellum, thought that the specimen could represent a new species. However, he thought the specimen’s condition was too poor to describe a new species from. The specimen currently remains in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25357). None of the specimens have locality labels, though Dessart’s labels for ethanol specimens MNHN EY25358 and MNHN EY25350 quote a determination label from Kieffer that indicate “ Type 71”.