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catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart Author Trietsch, Carolyn Author Mikó, István Author Deans, Andrew R. text European Journal of Taxonomy 2019 2019-02-28 502 1 60 journal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 Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950 Fig. 11 Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950 : 552 , ♂ . MNHN. Keyed. Ceraphron cavifrons – Risbec 1955 : 216 . Keyed. –– Dessart 1989 : 227 . Keyed. Fig. 11. Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950 , holotype, ♂ (MNHN EY22473). A . Dorsal view. B . Frontal view. C. Lateral view. Material examined Holotype KENYA • ♂ ; “Forêt de L’Elgon, Versant Est. 2.700–2.800m ., Mission de l’Omo, ARAMBOURG, CHAPPUIS, JEANNEL, 1932–1933 .” ( Risbec 1950: 552 ); MNHN EY22473 . Distribution Afrotropical. Comments Risbec (1950) described the species from a single male, and thought it could be related to C. oriphilus , C. naivashae or C. alticola , three species all described by Kieffer based on single female specimens. Risbec comments that Kieffer’s descriptions are not detailed enough to accurately match this male to any of the three females, suggesting that Risbec had not viewed those three Kieffer types at the time of the 1950 publication. The introduction to his key to African and Malagasy Ceraphronoidea ( Risbec 1955 ) also omits C. oriphilus , C. naivashae and C. alticola due to his confusion with Kieffer’s original descriptions. Even though all three specimens were deposited at the MNHN, it appears that Risbec never viewed them. Dessart did not dissect the male holotype or leave any labels on it indicating that he had viewed it, but he did include the species in a key to African Ceraphron species south of the Sahara, where he wrote that the male had been “insuffisamment décrit” and described a few additional characters ( Dessart 1989: 227 ). Thus, we know that Dessart did view this specimen. Dessart (1989) distinguished this species from C. alticola and C. naivashae in this key and had also previously synonymized Ceraphron oriphilus with Aphanogmus fumipennis ( Dessart 1966a ) , so it is not likely that this specimen is the male to any of Kieffer’s three female specimens, contrary to what Risbec (1950) thought. The male holotype specimen (MNHN EY22473) is on a double point mount. The pin through the specimen made it difficult to image. The specimen is missing the last two flagellomeres from the right antenna. It was not possible to image the male genitalia, but the specimen appears to have harpe that are pointed and longer than the gonostipes, with distal tufts of setae.