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catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart Author Trietsch, Carolyn Author Mikó, István Author Deans, Andrew R. text European Journal of Taxonomy 2019 2019-02-28 502 1 60 journal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 aphidi ( Risbec, 1955 ) Fig. 26 Ceraphron aphidi Risbec, 1955 : 216 , 219, ♂ , ♀ . Keyed. PBZT?, MNHN . Ceraphron aphidi – Risbec 1956 : 833 . Variation. Aphanogmus aphidi – Dessart 1962 : 297 . Generic transfer, description; 1989: 215. Diagnosis. Material examined Syntype MADAGASCAR • ♀ ; “ Bekily VIII 1933 . A. SEYRIG” ( Risbec 1955: 221 ); MNHN EY22474 . Other specimens MADAGASCAR • 8 ♀♀ , 1 ♂ ; MNHN EY22459 • 15 ♀♀ ; Lac Alaotra ; MNHN EY22460 • 5 ♂♂ , 8 ♀♀ ; MNHN EY22461 • 4 ♀♀ ; MNHN EY22462 . Distribution Afrotropical. Comments Risbec (1955) originally described the species Ceraphron aphidi from male and female specimens collected in Tsimbazaza, located in Antananarivo , Madagascar . However, no repository for these specimens was ever indicated. The type information was given as follows: “Localité et hôles. Tsimbazaza. Parasites de pucerons sur les feuilles de Schinus mollis 5 ♀ , 1 ♂ . Sortie des adultes 19.6.1952 . N° 1071.” ( Risbec 1955: 220 ). A second set of locality information, presumably of more paratypes , is given as follows: “Même localite. Parasites de pucerons sur les feuilles de Bauhinia sp. Elevage du 12.7.1951 . Sortie des adultes 6.8.1951 . N°912. RENAUD PAULIAN” ( Risbec 1955: 221 ). On a fresh line, what appears to be a third set of locality information is given as “Bekily VIII 1933 . 12 females . A. SEYRIG” ( Risbec 1955: 221 ). Dessart (1962) acquired a loan of specimens on a microscope preparation that was deposited at Antananarivo , possibly the PBZT in Antananarivo , Madagascar . The microscope preparation Dessart viewed was labeled only with the words “ Ceraphron aphidi RISBEC ”, but contained five females and one male specimen, corresponding with the first series of types described by Risbec (1955) . Dessart (1962) assumed these specimens to be the one male and five female specimens cited in Risbec (1955) , and moved the species from Ceraphron to Aphanogmus based on antennal characters. Fig. 26. Ceraphron aphidi (Risbec, 1955) . A . The double-point mounted syntype female and labels, showing the “TYPE” label (MNHN EY22474). B . One of the lots of specimens labeled as Ceraphron aphidi (Risbec, 1955) , and mounted on slides in glycerine, presumably by Risbec (MNHN EY22460). C . Lateral habitus of the double-point mounted syntype female (MNHN EY22474). At the MNHN, CT discovered one double point mounted female specimen labeled as Ceraphron aphidi Risbec and bearing a label saying “TYPE” (MNHN EY22474). The locality information on this specimen matches one of those given in Risbec (1955) , and it is likely one of the twelve females mentioned in this publication. It is uncertain who put the type label on this, or where the other specimens from the same locality are, but based on the matching locality label information, we presume this to be one of the missing syntypes . This specimen is absent from the discussion of the species in Dessart (1962) , but we know that Dessart viewed it, because he added a label to it in 1962 (presumably after the publication) identifying it as Ceraphron braconiphaga Ghesquière, 1942 . Though later Dessart (1971) synonymized Ceraphron braconiphaga with Aphanogmus fijiensis , he makes no mention of this specimen in that publication, and never officially synonymized the species Aphanogmus aphidi with Aphanogmus fijiensis during his lifetime ( Johnson & Musetti 2004 ). In the slide collection, CT also found a case of Risbec slides containing four slides labeled as Ceraphron aphidi Risbec. Each slide preparation had multiple specimens floating freely in glycerine, protected by an additional glass coverslide attached with wax along the edges. These slides do not appear to be types according to their limited locality information, but they appear to be prepared in the same way as the other Risbec slides mentioned in Dessart (1962) . Though we know Dessart viewed the double point mounted specimen, there is no indication that he ever saw these four slide-mounted specimen lots at the MNHN. Perhaps if he had been able to study these specimens, he would have been able to confirm whether these specimens are actually Ceraphron braconiphaga or Aphanogmus fijiensis .