Search

FAIR-Guidelines can be enriched to include ownership of data, localisation of storing data and stewardship that respects regulatory frameworks relevant to the jurisdiction. It is proposed that this is referred as FAIR-OLR; OLR referring to Ownership, Localisation and Regulation of data production in jurisdiction.

FIP2DMP is a mapping resource between a FAIR Implementation Profile (FIP) and a Data Management Plan (DMP) template implemented in the Data Stewardship Wizard. The main benefit of this resource is to facilitate easier adoption of community choices from the FIP by a researcher in their DMP.

The FAIR Hourglass provides a framework to organize two general phases of FAIR implementation: FAIRification (top) and FAIR Orchestration (bottom). The center of the hourglass represents the use of widely agreed-upon open, minimal standards ensuring machine-actionability.

Data on implementation of school-based interventions adds highly valuable information to corresponding evaluation studies. Measuring implementation outcomes, such as fidelity or acceptability, prov...

Data Stewardship Plan (DSP) templates prompt users to consider various issues but typically have no requirements for actual implementation choices. But as FAIR methodologies mature the DSP will become a more directive “how to” manual for making data FAIR.

BackgroundDielectric elastomer (DE) transducers permit to effectively develop large-deformation, energy-efficient, and compliant mechatronic devices. By arranging many DE elements in an array-like configuration, a soft actuator/sensor system capable of cooperative features can be obtained. When many DE elements are densely packed onto a common elastic membrane, spatial coupling effects introduce electro-mechanical interactions among neighbors, which strongly affect the system actuation and sensing performance. To effectively design cooperative DE systems, those coupling effects must be systematically characterized and understood first.ObjectiveAs a first step towards the development of complex cooperative DE systems, in this work we present a systematic characterization of the spatial electro-mechanical interactions in a 1-by-3 array of silicone DEs. More specifically, we investigate how the force and capacitance characteristics of each DE in the array change when its neighbors are subject to different types of mechanical or electrical loads. Force and capacitance are chosen for this investigation, since those quantities are directly tied to the DE actuation and sensing behaviors, respectively.MethodsAn electro-mechanical characterization procedure is implemented through a novel experimental setup, which is specifically developed for testing soft DE arrays. The setup allows to investigate how the force and capacitance characteristics of each DE are affected by static deformations and/or electrical voltages applied to its nearby elements. Different combinations of electro-mechanical loads and DE neighbors are considered in an extensive experimental campaign.ResultsThe conducted investigation shows the existence of strong electro-mechanical coupling effects among the different array elements. The interaction intensity depends on multiple parameters, such as the distance between active DEs or the amount of deformation/voltage applied to the neighbors, and provides essential information for the design of array actuators. In some cases, such coupling effects may lead to changes in force up to 9% compared to the reference configuration. A further coupling is also observed in the DE capacitive response, and opens up the possibility of implementing advanced and/or distributed self-sensing strategies in future applications.ConclusionBy means of the conducted experiments, we clearly show that the actuation and sensing characteristics of each DE in the array are strongly influenced by the electro-mechanical loading state of its neighbors. The coupling effects may significantly affect the overall cooperative system performance, if not properly accounted for during the design. In future works, the obtained results will allow developing cooperative DE systems which are robust to, and possibly take advantage of, such spatial coupling effects.

Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends serial rapid antigen assay collection within congregate facilities. Although modeling and observational studies from communities and long-term care facilities have shown serial collection provides adequate sensitivity and specificity, the accuracy within correctional facilities remains unknown. Methods Using Connecticut Department of Correction data from 21 November 2020 to 15 June 2021, we estimated the accuracy of a rapid assay, BinaxNOW (Abbott), under 3 collection strategies: single test collection and serial collection of 2 and 3 tests separated by 1–4 days. The sensitivity and specificity of the first (including single), second, and third serially collected BinaxNOW tests were estimated relative to RT-PCRs collected ≤1 day of the BinaxNOW test. The accuracy metrics of the testing strategies were then estimated as the sum (sensitivity) and product (specificity) of tests in each strategy. Results Of the 13 112 residents who contributed ≥1 BinaxNOW test during the study period, 3825 contributed ≥1 RT-PCR paired BinaxNOW test. In relation to RT-PCR, the 3-rapid-antigen-test strategy had a sensitivity of 95.9% (95% CI: 93.6–97.5%) and specificity of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.7–99.1%). The sensitivities of the 2- and 1-rapid-antigen-test strategies were 88.8% and 66.8%, and the specificities were 98.5% and 99.4%, respectively. The sensitivity was higher among symptomatic residents and when RT-PCRs were collected before BinaxNOW tests. Conclusions We found serial antigen test collection resulted in high diagnostic accuracy. These findings support serial collection for outbreak investigation, screening, and when rapid detection is required (such as intakes or transfers).

ENVRI-FAIR's third FAIR assessment workshop: * FIP Introduction 25 January 2022, 9:00 - 12:00 CET * FIP consultation 28 January 2022, 9:00 - 12:00 CET * FAIR convergence 22 February 2022, 9:00 - 12:00 CET

Individual plants vary in their ability to respond to environmental changes. The plastic response of a plant enhances its ability to avoid environmental constraints, and hence supports growth, reproduction, and evolutionary and agricultural success.Major progress in the analysis of above- and belowground processes on individual plants has been made by the application of non-invasive imaging methods including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET).MRI allows for repetitive measurements of roots growing in soil and facilitates quantification of root system architecture traits in 3D. PET, on the other hand, opens a door to analyze dynamic physiological processes in plants such as long-distance carbon transport in a repeatable manner. Combining MRI with PET enables monitoring of short livedCarbon tracer (11C) allocation along the transport paths (i.e. roots visualized by MRI) into active sink structures.To analyse the link between root-internal C allocation patterns and C metabolism in the rhizosphere, we are combining 11CO2 with stable 13CO2 labelling of plants. Isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) analyses of rhizosphere soil is applied to link root-internal C allocation patterns with distribution of 13C in the rhizosphere soil. The metabolically active rhizosphere organisms are subsequently identified based on DNA 13C stable isotope probing.In our presentation we will highlight our approaches for gathering quantitative data from both image-based technologies in combination with destructive analysis that provides insights into the functioning and dynamics of C transport processes in the plant-soil system.

Supplemental Figure 1 shows Pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs) promoted tumor cell invasion through close cell-cell interactions.

Pancreatic cancer has an abysmal 5-year survival rate of 8%, making it a deadly disease with a need for novel therapies. Here we describe a multitargeting heparin-based mimetic, necuparanib, and its antitumor activity in both in vitro and in vivo models of pancreatic cancer. Necuparanib reduced tumor cell proliferation and invasion in a three-dimensional (3D) culture model; in vivo, it extended survival and reduced metastasis. Furthermore, proteomic analysis demonstrated that necuparanib altered the expression levels of multiple proteins involved in cancer-driving pathways including organ development, angiogenesis, proliferation, genomic stability, cellular energetics, and invasion and metastasis. One protein family known to be involved in invasion and metastasis and altered by necuparanib treatment was the matrix metalloprotease (MMP) family. Necuparanib reduced metalloproteinase 1 (MMP1) and increased tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 3 (TIMP3) protein levels and was found to increase RNA expression of TIMP3. MMP enzymatic activity was also found to be reduced in the 3D model. Finally, we confirmed necuparanib's in vivo activity by analyzing plasma samples of patients enrolled in a phase I/II study in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer; treatment with necuparanib plus standard of care significantly increased TIMP3 plasma protein levels. Together, these results demonstrate necuparanib acts as a broad multitargeting therapeutic with in vitro and in vivo anti-invasive and antimetastatic activity.

Supplementary Table 2 lists GO Categories significantly altered by necuparanib treatment, assigned to cancer-driving pathways

Supplementary Table 1 lists proteins significantly altered by necuparanib treatment

Supplemental Figure 3 shows MMP1 and MMP7 protein levels were unchanged in the plasma of patients.

Supplemental Figure 2 shows GM6001 reduced spheroid growth and invasion in the 3D co-culture model.

Whole cells of Pseudomonas putida KT2440 producing multicomponent non-heme diiron monooxygenase PmlABCDEF transforms a vast variety of compounds into different oxy-derivatives, in certain cases with high regio- or enantioselectivity.

Ceríaco, Luis M P, Aescht, Erna, Ahyong, Shane T, Ballerio, Alberto, Bouchard, Patrice, Bourgoin, Thierry, Dmitriev, Dmitry, Evenhuis, Neal, Grygier, Mark J, Harvey, Mark S, Kottelat, Maurice, Kluge, Nikita, Krell, Frank-T, Kojima, Jun-Ichi, Kullander, Sven O, Lucinda, Paulo, Lyal, Christopher H C, Pyle, Richard L, Rheindt, Frank E, Luisa Scioscia, Cristina, Welter-Schultes, Francisco, Whitmore, Daniel, Yanega, Douglas, Zhang, Zhi-Qiang, Zhou, Hong-Zhang, Pape, Thomas (2023): EDITORIAL Renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 197 (2): 283-286, DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac107, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/197/2/283/6994476

Background: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic reached Germany between March and May 2020. In order to contain the spread of the virus and particularly protect vulnerable people, the government imposed a lockdown in March 2020. In addition to infection control measures, such as hygiene and social distancing requirements, a general ban on access to nursing homes for relatives and external service providers was issued. Methods: To investigate the challenges and consequences of the enacted infection prevention measures and specific strategies for nursing homes in Germany, a multicentre cross-sectional qualitative interview study with nursing home managers and ward managers was conducted. Recorded audio data were transcribed, analysed using thematic framework analysis and reflected in peer debriefings. Results: Seventy-eight interviews with 40 nursing home managers and 38 ward managers from 43 German nursing homes were conducted. At organisational level, the following six themes were identified: Appointing a multi-professional crisis task force, reorganizing the use of building and spatial structures, continuous adaption and implementation of hygiene plans, adapting staff deployment to dynamically changing demands, managing additional communicative demands and relying on and resorting to informal networks. To deal with the pandemic challenges also six themes can be described for the direct care level: Changed routines, taking over non-nursing tasks, increased medical responsibility, increased documentation demands, promoting social participation and increased communication demands. Also various negative consequences were identified (four themes): Psychological stress, negative emotional consequences, permanent feeling of responsibility and increased potential for conflicts. Positive emotional consequences were also reported (two themes): resources for the challenges and positive emotional consequences for home managers and staff. Conclusions: The results of the described challenges, strategies and consequences allow recommendations as basis for possible approaches and successful adaptation processes in nursing home care in the future. In particular, there is a need for local networks to act in a coordinated way and a need for quantitative and qualitative support for nurses, such as staff support as well as advanced nursing practice, to cope with the challenges of the pandemic.

"Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a type of radiotherapy which uses a high radiation dose delivered in a single or a few fractions and is employed with local curative intent for early-stage cancer, relapsed cancer or in the oligometastatic setting. The aim of this case report is to illustrate the potential of this technique in the salvage re-irradiation of a late isolated in field regional relapse after bilateral breast cancer. This is the case of a 65-years-old woman with a metachronous bilateral breast cancer (left side-1998, stage IIB, Luminal type; right side-2010, stage IIA, Her2 positive) who received both chemo- and endocrine systemic therapy, underwent surgery and was irradiated on both sides, with a late solitary recurrence in her left internal mammary node chain (2018) treated by SBRT re-irradiation (40 Gy in 5 fractions). Three years after salvage SBRT, under Palbociclib+Letrozole and thorough follow-up protocol, she is still in clinical complete remission, with a normal CA 15-3 and metabolically inactive residual mass on PET-CT, negative on a recent biopsy. SBRT is becoming a hallmark of oligometastatic disease management and can be invaluable in patients subjected to prior radiotherapy."

Erwinia amylovora causes fire blight on rosaceous plants. One of the major entry points of E. amylovora into hosts is flowers, where E. amylovora proliferates epiphytically on stigmatic and hypanthium surfaces and, subsequently, causes endophytic infection at the hypanthium. The type III secretion system (T3SS) is an important virulence factor in E. amylovora. Although the role of T3SS during endophytic infection is well characterized, its expression during epiphytic colonization and role in the subsequent infection is less understood. Here, we investigated T3SS gene expression in epiphytic E. amylovora on stigma and hypanthium of apple flowers under different relative humidities (RH). On stigma surfaces, T3SS was expressed in a high percentage of E. amylovora cells, and its expression promoted epiphytic growth. On hypanthium surfaces, however, T3SS was expressed in fewer E. amylovora cells than on the stigma, and displayed no correlation with epiphytic growth, even though T3SS expression is essential for infection. E. amylovora cells grown on stigmatic surfaces and then flushed down to the hypanthium displayed a higher level of T3SS expression than cells grown on the hypanthium surface alone. Furthermore, E. amylovora cells precultured on stigma had a higher potential to infect flowers than E. amylovora cells precultured in a T3SS-repressive medium. This suggests that T3SS induction during the stigmatic epiphytic colonization may be beneficial for subsequent infection. Finally, epiphytic expression of T3SS was influenced by RH. Higher percentage of stigmatic E. amylovora cells expressed T3SS under high RH than under low RH. [Formula: see text] Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Violence and Violence Prevention in Nursing Homes during the COVID-19 Pandemic - A partial analysis of Interviews with Managers or Team Leaders Abstract. Background: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, strict infection control measures were in force in long-term residential care in Germany that burdened staff and isolated residents socially. Both are considered risk factors for violence in long-term residential care. Questions: How does violence develop in nursing homes under pandemic conditions from the point of view of managers and how do strategies for preventing violence change? Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with staff in 43 nursing homes: 25 with service managers, 15 with nurse managers, 28 with nursing team leaders and 10 with registered nurses with extended tasks. The interviews were recorded as audio, transcribed and analysed in five steps following the "Thematic Framework Analysis". Results: The infection control measures were partly perceived as deprivation of freedom. Residents, relatives and staff partly reacted most with verbal violence. Nevertheless, the issue of violence was not a major concern for management and preventive measures were not carried out. Conclusions: The results show that strategies to prevent violence might not be sufficiently established in the institutions involved and would have to be adapted to the conditions of the pandemic. Further research is needed to evaluate infection control measures in their potential to increase the incidence of violence.

Asthenolabus canadensis (Cresson, 1877) (Figures 9, 10) Platylabus canadensis Cresson, 1877: 200 (descr., key); Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 781 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 282 (distr., key, fig.); Berthoumieu 1904: 57 (cat.); Cresson 1916: 23 (type); Johnson 1927: 143 (distr.); Strickland 1946: 41 (distr.); Townes 1944: 311 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 280 (distr., cat.). Asthenolabus canadensis Heinrich 1962b: 776 (descr., distr., neallotype designation, key); Carlson 1979: 546 (cat., distr.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 673 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Lectotype ♀ (ANSP). Cresson (1877, p. 200) described Platylabus canadensis from ‘Hab.– Canada’ without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Cresson (1916, p. 23) in his list of types, simply reported the type to be a female and in ‘ I n good condition’, without clarifying the number of specimens. Townes (1944, p. 311) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 280) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962b, p. 776) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Carlson (1979, p. 317) expressed the assumption that Cresson (1916) ‘indicated which single specimen was to be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had described a species from more than one specimen’. Hopper (1984, p. 968) reported being unable to see how it can be claimed that Cresson (1916) indicated a single specimen to be the type. This statement contradicted Cresson’s (1916, p. 1) own statement that ‘In selecting the single type the author has been governed by the present condition of the original material, and has always selected the perfect, or more nearly perfect specimen’ and suggests that Hopper (1984) overlooked this clear indication of Cresson’s (1916) intention to select a single name-bearing type (i.e. a lectotype in the modern sense). Cresson’s (1916) lectotype designation was valid and no subsequent lectotype designation has any validity (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). The fact that the selected specimen eventually could no longer be traced, as suggested by various subsequent authors (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780; Hopper 1984), could be explained by collection mismanagement and has no influence on the validity of the lectotype selection. Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can provide more insights. Heinrich’s (1962b, p. 776) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ is in error., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1884-1885, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Cresson ET. 1877. Notes on the species belonging to the subfamily Ichneumonides, found in America north of Mexico. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 6: 129 - 212. doi: 10.2307 / 25076321.","Cresson ET. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with a catalogue of the described species, and bibliography. Trans Am Entomol Soc, Supplementary Volume: 1 - 350.","Dalla Torre KW. 1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volumen 3. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Lipsiae: Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelman; p. VIII + 1141.","Bradley JC. 1903. The Genus Platylabus, Wesmael, with descriptions of two new species. Can Entomol. 35 (10): 275 - 283. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 35275 b- 10.","Berthoumieu V. 1904. Fam. Ichneumonidae, Subfam. Ichneumoninae. Gen Ins. 18: 1 - 87.","Cresson ET. 1916. The Cresson types of Hymenoptera. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 1: 1 - 146.","Johnson CW. 1927. The insect fauna with reference to the flora and other biological features. Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute of Anatamoy and Biology; p. 247.","Strickland EH. 1946. An annotated list of the Ichneumonoidea of Alberta. Can Entomol. 78 (2): 36 - 46. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 7836 - 2.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Hopper HP. 1984. On the question of the selector of the lectotypes of the species of Ichneumonidae describe by Ezra Townsend Cresson. Proc Entomol Soc Wash. 86: 968.","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306."]}

Probolus Wesmael, 1845 Ichneumon (Probolus) Wesmael, 1845: 150. Type species originally Ichneumon fossorius Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy. This type species was set aside because it was misidentified, and a new type species Ichneumnon culpatorius Linnaeus, 1758 was fixed under ICZN Article 70.3.2, by Horstmann (2000). Notes Type species originally fixed as Ichneumon fossorius Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy, with a second species Ichneumon alticola Gravenhorst, 1820 included with doubts (not belonging to the originally included nominal species under ICZN 1999, Article 67.2.5). Wesmael (1845) did not cite an authorship for I. fossorius. Subsequent authors attributed the name incorrectly to Gravenhorst (1820) and recognised this as a different species (Ashmead 1900a, p. 19; Viereck 1914, p. 122; Townes et al. 1965, p. 509). Gravenhorst (1820, p. 285) used the Linnean name subsequently and did not establish a new name. Under ‘No. 9 Ichneumon subsericans ’, Gravenhorst reported I. fosssorius as used by Linnaeus and other authors, to belong to the species I. subsericans Gravenhorst, 1820. Under ‘No. 10 Ichneumon fossorius ’, Gravenhorst (1820, p. 285) presented a species under the name I. fossorius and explained that he used this name in the sense of Fabricius (and Walckenaer and Müller), not of Linnaeus. Gravenhorst (1820) did not intend to establish a new name, but used subsequently the previously established name I. fossorius Linnaeus, 1758, in the taxonomic sense of Fabricius and other authorities. So, this usage was a misidentification of I. fossorius Linnaeus, 1758 sensu Fabricius, Walckenaer and Müller (Gravenhorst did not provide bibliographic references). Such a misidentified name cannot be taken to establish a new available name (ICZN 1999, Article 49). Thus, no new name was established, either by Fabricius or by Gravenhorst (1820). Carlson (1979, p. 513) interpreted ‘ Ichneumon fossorius Gravenhorst, 1820 ’ as a deliberate misidentification of Ichneumon fossorius Linnaeus, 1758 by Gravenhorst (1829, p. 164). Such a case would fall under ICZN Articles 11.10 and 67.13, but only if the deliberately misidentified species was employed to establish a new genus or subgenus. This situation does not apply here. Wesmael (1845) did not demonstrate awareness of a misidentification when establishing Probolus. Horstmann (2000) reported that Wesmael (1845) misidentified the type species (confirming previous statements by Wesmael (1848) and Wesmael (1853)), and that three female specimens in the collection matched the description of the Probolus type species by Wesmael (1845). These specimens belonged to Ichneumon culpatorius Linnaeus, 1758 in the taxonomic judgement of Horstmann (2000). Horstmann (2000) cited Article 70.3, stating that I. culpatorius Linnaeus, 1758 shall be the type, originally misidentified as I. fossorius in the type fixation by monotypy by Wesmael (1845). Horstmann (2000) attributed I. fossorius to ‘ Gravenhorst 1820 ’; however, incorrect authorship and date citations are immaterial in such acts, and in any case the authorship does not form part of the name (ICZN 1999, Articles 67.7 and 51.1). By this action Horstmann (2000) validly fixed I. culpatorius as the type species of Probolus., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1920-1921, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Wesmael C. 1845. Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 18: 1 - 239. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 66034.","Horstmann K. 2000. Die europaischen Arten von Probolus Wesmael, 1845 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Entomofauna. 21: 293 - 300.","Gravenhorst JLC. 1820. Monographia ichneumonum Pedemontanae regionis. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. 24: 275 - 388.","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306.","Ashmead WH. 1900 a. Classification of the Ichneumon flies, or the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proc US Natl Mus. 23 (1206): 1 - 220. doi: 10.5479 / si. 00963801.23 - 1206.1.","Viereck HL. 1914. Type species of the genera of Ichneumon flies. US Nat Mus Bull. 83 (i - v): 1 - 186.","Townes HK, Momoi S, Townes M. 1965. A catalogue and reclassification of the Eastern Palearctic Ichneumonidae. Mem Am Entomol Ins. 5: 1 - 661.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Gravenhorst JLC. 1829. Ichneumonologia Europaea. Pars I. Vratislaviae: Sumtibus auctoris; p. 827.","Wesmael C. 1848. Mantissa Ichneumonim belgii. Bulletins de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 15: 292 - 341.","Wesmael C. 1853. Ichneumones Platyuri Europaei. Descriptiones et adnotationes novae. Bulletins de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 20: 297 - 328."]}

Platylabus clarus (Cresson, 1867) (Figures 22, 23) Ichneumon clarus Cresson, 1867: 297 (descr.); Berthoumieu 1904: 42 (distr.); Cresson 1916: 24 (cat.). Platylabus clarus Cresson 1877: 199 (distr., key, notes); Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 781 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 280 (distr., key, fig., syn.); Viereck 1917: 343 (key); Townes 1944: 311 (cat., syn.); Guppy 1948: 13 (distr.); Townes and Townes 1951: 280 (cat.); Strickland 1952: 120 (distr.); Foxlee 1954: 13 (distr.); Short 1959: 449 (larva descr.); Heinrich 1959: 215 (notes, syn.); Heinrich 1962b: 705 (descr., distr., neallotype designation, key); Heinrich 1977: 274 (descr., distr., key); Short 1978: 120 (larva descr.); Bradley 1978: 6 (distr., host); Carlson 1979: 544 (cat., distr.); Bugg et al. 1989: 112 (distr., host); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 678 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Platylabus magnificus Provancher, 1886: 36 (descr., key); Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 784 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 280 (distr., key, syn.); Berthoumieu 1904: 57 (cat.); Gahan and Rohwer 1918a: 168 (invalid lectotype designation); Barron 1975: 503 (notes). Regarded as synonym of I. clarus by Bradley (1903: 280). Original type series Holotype ♀ of Platylabus clarus, by monotypy (ANSP); holotype ♀ of Platylabus magnificus, by monotypy (LUEC). Cresson (1867, p. 297) described Platylabus clarus based on ‘One ♀ specimen’. Therefore, this specimen is here referred to as the holotype fixed by monotypy (ICZN 1999, Article 73.1.2). Provancher (1886, p. 36) described Platylabus magnificus based on ‘Une seule ♀ capturée Bécàncour’ (= only one ♀ captured at Bécàncour). Gahan and Rohwer (1918a, p. 168) designated a lectoype, but as Barron (1975, p. 503) acknowledged, there is no need for a lectotype as Provancher clearly mentioned only one specimen. Therefore, this specimen is here referred to as the holotype fixed by monotypy (ICZN 1999, Article 73.1.2) and Gahan and Rohwer’s (1918a, p. 168) designation should be considered an invalid lectotype designation. Type locality United States of America, Massachusetts, Ridings (Platylabus clarus). Canada, Québec, ‘Bécancour’ (Platylabus magnificus). Heinrich (1962b, 1977) reported New Hampshire as the type locality for Platylabus clarus, even though the type locality, as reported by Cresson (1867, p. 297), is Massachusetts, while New Hampshire is a locality later added by Cresson (1877, p. 199). Material examined UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALABAMA: Madison Co., Huntsville, Monte Sand [Sano] St. Park, blacklight trap, 24 May–02 June 1982, leg. L.L. Lampert, 1♀ (FSCA); FLORIDA: Leon Co., Tall Timb. R. S., M. Trap 6, 13–20 November 1983, leg. Gupta, 1♂ & 1♀ (FSCA); GEORGIA: Athens, Bot. Garden M.Tr., 04 May 1983, leg. Gupta, 1♂ (FSCA); idem, 05 July 1983, 1♀ (FSCA); idem, 05 June 1983, ♀ (FSCA);; Cobb Co., Smyrna, M. Trap 3, 04 May 1983, leg. Gupta, 2♂♂ (FSCA); NEW YORK: Westchester Co., Armonk, Calder Center, Malaise trap, 12–18 July 1974, leg. C. Calmbacher, 1♂ (FSCA); VIRGINIA: Carrol Co., 14 October 1969, leg. R.G. Gardner, 1♀ (VMNH); Essex Co., 1.5 km SE of Dunnsville, Malaise Trap, 11 October 1991, leg. D.R. Smith, 2♀♀ (VMNH); Mecklenburg Co., Elm Hill S.G.M.A., Cyde’s Pond, Malaise Trap, 1–30 October 1995, leg. VMNH Sruvey, 1♀ (VMNH); University of Richmond, 11 February 1962, 1♀ (VMNH). Updated distribution (Figure 23) CANADA: Alberta (Strickland 1952), British Columbia (Guppy 1948; Foxlee 1954; Bradley 1978), Newfoundland and Labrador (Bradley 1978), Ontario (Heinrich 1962b; Bradley 1978), Quebec (Provancher 1886; Bradley 1978), Saskatchewan (Bradley 1978); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Alabama (new state record), Florida (Heinrich 1977), Georgia (Heinrich 1977), Louisiana (Heinrich 1977), Maine (Heinrich 1962b), Massachusetts (Cresson 1867), New Hampshire (Cresson 1877), North Carolina (Heinrich 1962b), Pennsylvania (Heinrich 1962b), Virginia (new state record), West Virginia (new state record). Host Caripeta divisata Walker (Bradley 1978), Eutrapela clemataria J.E. Smith (Bradley 1978; Bugg et al. 1989), Phaeuora quernaria J.E. Smith (Bradley 1978) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Bradley (1978, p. 6) reported also one ‘ Noctuidae ’ among the possible hosts for the species, without mentioning any genus or species. Further investigations are needed to confirm the record. Male The first description of a male was provided by Cresson (1877, p. 199), but Heinrich (1962b, p. 705) believed that he himself was describing the male for the first time (referring to it as neallotype). Comments This species is widespread across the entire eastern part of North America, as stated by Townes and Townes (1951) and Carlson (1979), where it is the Platylabus with the southernmost distribution (reaching Florida) (Heinrich 1977; Yu et al. 2016). Heinrich (1962b) stated that he has never seen specimens of this species from the west, but the species was reported by Guppy (1948, p. 13) for Vancouver Island (British Columbia). However, this last record is inconsistent as the author listed the species for the island but also added a comment by Henry Townes – the one responsible for the determination – who stated that the species was ‘not recorded from the West’. It is unclear whether he was referring to the western United States or more generally to western North America. Subsequent records by Foxlee (1954, p. 13) and Bradley (1978, p. 6) provided new evidence of the species occurring in the West, specifically at Robson, British Columbia. There are several images of the species on BugGuide. However, we preferred to be cautious with including those records within this publication as there are species morphologically very similar to Platylabus clarus (e.g. Platylabus divisatae Heinrich, 1963 or Platylabus hyperetis Heinrich, 1962), which could prevent a correct identification from photos. Townes (1944) proposed that Platylabus metallicus Bradley, 1903 was a junior synonym of P. clarus without providing any comments, while Heinrich (1959, p. 215) rejected this view, noting that Townes (1944) misidentified some specimens as Platylabus clarus when they actually belonged to the former species., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1905-1907, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Cresson ET. 1867. A list of Ichneumonidae of North America, with descriptions of a new species. Part 1. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 1: 289 - 312. doi: 10.2307 / 25076182.","Berthoumieu V. 1904. Fam. Ichneumonidae, Subfam. Ichneumoninae. Gen Ins. 18: 1 - 87.","Cresson ET. 1916. The Cresson types of Hymenoptera. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 1: 1 - 146.","Cresson ET. 1877. Notes on the species belonging to the subfamily Ichneumonides, found in America north of Mexico. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 6: 129 - 212. doi: 10.2307 / 25076321.","Cresson ET. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with a catalogue of the described species, and bibliography. Trans Am Entomol Soc, Supplementary Volume: 1 - 350.","Dalla Torre KW. 1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volumen 3. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Lipsiae: Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelman; p. VIII + 1141.","Bradley JC. 1903. The Genus Platylabus, Wesmael, with descriptions of two new species. Can Entomol. 35 (10): 275 - 283. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 35275 b- 10.","Viereck HL. 1917. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Part III. The Hymenoptera, or wasp-like insects of Connecticut. Ichneumonoidea. Hartford (CT): State of Connecticut; p. 824.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Guppy R. 1948. A preliminary annotated list of Ichneumonidae collected in the Wellington district of Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Hymenoptera). Proc Entomol Soc Br Columb. 44: 12 - 13.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Strickland EH. 1952. Additions to the list of Ichneumonoidea from Alberta. Can Entomol. 84 (4): 118 - 122. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 84118 - 4.","Foxlee HR. 1954. A list of Hymenoptera collected at Robson, B. C. Proc Entomol Soc Br Columb. 51: 13 - 14.","Short JRT. 1959. A description and classification of the final instar larvae of Ichneumonidae. Proc US Natl Mus. 110 (3419): 391 - 511. doi: 10.5479 / si. 00963801.110 - 3419.391.","Heinrich G. 1959. Revisional notes on the types of Ichneumoninae of Cresson, Cushman, Ashmead and others. Entomol News. 70: 205 - 217.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Short JRT. 1978. The final larval instars of the Ichneumonidae. Mem Am Entomol Ins. 25: 1 - 508.","Bradley GA. 1978. Parasites of forest Lepidoptera in Canada. Part 2. Subfamily Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Ottawa (Canada): Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service; p. 97.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Bugg RL, Ellis RT, Carlson RW. 1989. Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera) using Extrafloral Nectar of Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L., Fabaceae) in Massachusetts. Biol Agric Hortic. 6 (2): 107 - 114. doi: 10.1080 / 01448765.1989. 9754509.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Provancher L. 1886. Additions and corrections au Volume II de la Faune Entomologique du Canada. Traitant des Hymenopteres. Quebec (Canada): Typographie de C. Darveau; p. 475.","Gahan AB, Rohwer SA. 1918 a. Lectotypes of the species of Hymenoptera (except Apoidea) described by Abbe Provancher. Can Entomol. 50 (5): 166 - 171. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 50166 - 5.","Barron JR. 1975. Provancher's collections of insects, particularly those of Hymenoptera, and a study of the types of his species of Ichneumonidae. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 387 - 591.","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306."]}

Asthenolabus Heinrich, 1951 Stenolabus Heinrich, 1935: 197. Type species: Platylabus lastiscapus Thomson, 1894, by original designation. Preoccupied by Stenolabus Schulthess-Rechberg, 1910 (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Asthenolabus Heinrich, 1951: 240. New replacement name for Stenolabus, 1935. Comparative diagnosis The very elongate and narrow sickle-shaped propodeal spiracles (Figure 9b) set Asthenolabus apart from Apaeleticus, Carlsonia, Cyclolabus and Lincyus (all with small and round propodeal spiracles). However, this feature places Asthenolabus close to Platylabus and Tropicolabus from which it can be distinguished by the very superficial, almost obsolete, gastrocoeli and thyridia (Figure 9d), and to Probolus from which it can be distinguished by the presence of propodeal carinae and the absence of a hump in the anterior part of the postepetiole (Heinrich 1961, 1962b; Tereshkin 2009). Range and diversity The genus is known only from the Nearctic, Palearctic and Indomalayan regions, with three species in North America, of which only one, Asthenolabus canadensis (Cresson, 1877), occurs in the south-eastern United States (Heinrich 1962b; Yu et al. 2016)., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1882-1884, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Heinrich G. 1951. Ichneumoniden der Steiermark (Hym.). Bonner zoologische Beitrage. 2: 235 - 290.","Heinrich G. 1935. Zur Systematik der Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae VII. (Hym.). Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift. 1935: 191 - 200. doi: 10.1002 / mmnd. 48019350302.","Cresson ET. 1877. Notes on the species belonging to the subfamily Ichneumonides, found in America north of Mexico. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 6: 129 - 212. doi: 10.2307 / 25076321.","Heinrich G. 1961. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part I. Introduction, key to Nearctic genera of Ichcneumoninae Stenopneusticae, and synopsis of the Protichneumonini north of Mexico. Can Entomol. 15: 1 - 88. doi: 10.4039 / entm 9215 fv.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Tereshkin AM. 2009. Illustrated key to the tribes of subfamilia Ichneumoninae and genera of the tribe Platylabini of world fauna (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer biologische Beitrage. 41: 1317 - 1608.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada)."]}

Tropicolabus foxi (Davis 1898) (Figures 36, 36c, 37b, 38b, 39b, 40 d-f, 41) Platylabus foxi Davis, 1898: 352 (descr.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat.); Dalla Torre, 1900: 783 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 282 (cat., key); Cresson 1928: 17 (cat.); Townes 1944: 314 (as a synonym of Thaumatoteles ornatus (Cresson)). Platylabus Foxy; Bethoumieu, 1904: 57 (cat.). Tropicolabus foxi Heinrich 1959: 216 (cat., notes, resurrection); Heinrich 1962b: 754 (descr.); Carlson 1979: 546 (cat.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 683 (cat.); Yu et al. (2016). Original type series Holotype ♂, by monotypy (ANSP). Davis (1898, p. 353) clearly stated that the description was based on only ‘One specimen from Camden, N.J’. This specimen can be referred to as the holotype designated by monotypy (ICZN 1999, Article 73.1.2). Type locality United States of America, New Jersey, Camden. Type specimens examined (Figures 38b, 40 d-f) Holotype: ‘[White label] Camden N.J./92 // [White label] Platylabus / foxi /Davis/ [White label] COLLECTION OF/G. C. DAVIS. // [Red label] Holo-TYPE/ 4454 ’ (specimen examined). Material examined UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA: Alachua Co., Gainsville, Beville Hts., 02 July 1980, Black Light Trap, L.A. Stange, 1♀ (FSCA). Updated distribution (Figure 41) New Jersey (Davis 1898); Florida (new state record). Host Unknown Female Hereby described for the first time (see below). Comments Davis (1898, p. 352) described Platylabus foxi based on a single male specimen from Camden (New Jersey). The taxon was later synonymised under Thaumatoteles ornatus (= Ambloplisus ornatus) by Townes (1944, p. 314) without adding any evidence or comments for the new synonym. Heinrich (1959, p. 216), after examining the holotype, resurrected foxi, noting that it can be easily distinguished from Ambloplisus ornatus by the characters mentioned above (see Comparative diagnosis). The specimen hereby examined and described represents the first record since the original description as well as the first record for the south-eastern United States, and the first female of the species. The current scattered distribution (Figure 40f) indicates that the species has been overlooked in collections for many years, due to the considerable chromatic convergence with Ambloplisus ornatus. Description of female (Figures 36, 37b, 39b) Body length about 8.5 mm. Fore wing length 6 mm. Colour. Head mostly yellowish white, with frons, ocellar triangle, central part of vertex, temple (except for outer orbit), and occiput (except ventral part) black; central part of clypeus and apical segments of maxillary palpi orangish yellow; flagellum dark brownblack, with ventral part of scape and flagellomeres 6/7 to 13/14 yellowish white. Mesosoma mostly yellowish white, with the following black: pronotal collar, meoscutum (except two yellow central lines), area below subtegular ridge, the area corresponding to the mesopleural pit, most of the mesopleuron, axilla, anterior part of propodeum, and posterior part of area petiolaris; fore and mid leg reddish orange with coxae and trochanters yellowish white, hind leg reddish orange with a yellowish-white spot on dorsal side of coxa and trochanter, and segments 3–5 of tarsus infuscate; wing hyaline. Metasoma mostly reddish orange, with tergite 1 yellowish white and a dark brown spot on postpetiole, and tergites 1–3 each with a yellowish-white continuous posterior band. Head. Face about 0.4–0.5× as high as wide (width between compound eyes at level of antennal socket; height from antennal socket to clypeal suture), moderately matt with well-defined and dense punctation; clypeus matt with dense punctation, concave in lateral view and with apical margin lenticular in frontal view, tentorial pit relatively large and well defined; mandible twisted, with internal tooth 0.5× as long as external tooth; malar space 1.5–1.6× as long as mandible width; malar sulcus absent. Frons smooth right behind antennal sockets, transversely irregularly striate going towards front ocellus; ocellar triangle slightly elevated, distance between lateral ocellus and internal margin of eye about 0.9× as long as interocellar distance; vertex smooth and shagreened. Gena smooth, shining, without punctation, and roundly narrowed behind eye in dorsal view; occipital carina complete, meeting hypostomal carina at base of mandible. Antenna with 23 flagellomeres (antenna broken), with 13–23 flagellomeres ventrally flattened. Mesosoma. Pronotal neck and ventral part of pronotum matt and coarsely rugose, central part of pronotum smooth and shining with irregular, short striations, dorsolateral part of pronotum matt with rugose coarse punctures; epomia indistinct. Mesoscutum matt, rugose punctate in anterior part, with wrinkles where notauli are located, and smooth and impunctate towards the middle and posterior part, notaulus distinguishable only in anterior part; scutellum slightly elevated above metascutellum, globular, matt, and indistinctly rugose-punctate, lateral carina of scutellum present and reaching apex. Mesopleuron, except for speculum, shining with superficial punctures, speculum smooth without any punctures. Mesosternum almost matt, with dense and superficial punctures, posterior transverse carina absent at level of middle coxa. Metapleuron densely punctured throughout, juxtacoxal carina present but weak. Propodeum irregularly wrinkled with area superomedial well separated from area basalis which is slightly projecting in short tooth-like projections; area externa well separated from area dentipara, area petiolaris well defined. Fore wing areolet rhomboidal, 1cu-a slightly distal to M&RS. Fore and middle coxa polished and shining on dorsal side, matt and irregularly punctured on ventral side; hind coxa densely punctured on ventral side, shining and smooth on dorsal side. Metasoma. Metasoma modified, with only 5 tergites visible in dorsal view. T1 dorsally flattened with lateral carinae running across entire length of tergite, postpetiole from rugose to striate, median field slightly indicated; T2 anteriorly rugose and medioposteriorly punctate, gastrocoeli and thyridia wider that space between them, gastrocoeli irregularly striate; T3 densely punctate anteriorly, sparsely punctate posteriorly; rest of metasoma superficially and sparsely punctate; hypopygium large, covering base of ovipositor; ovipositor slightly downcurved., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1927-1931, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Davis GC. 1898. Descriptions of new species of Trigonalidae, Stephanidae and Ichneumonidae. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 24: 349 - 372.","Ashmead WH. 1900 b. Order Hymenoptera. In: Smith JB, editor. Insects of New Jersey, with notes on those of economic importance. Trenton: McCrellish & Quingley; p. 501 - 613.","Bradley JC. 1903. The Genus Platylabus, Wesmael, with descriptions of two new species. Can Entomol. 35 (10): 275 - 283. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 35275 b- 10.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Heinrich G. 1959. Revisional notes on the types of Ichneumoninae of Cresson, Cushman, Ashmead and others. Entomol News. 70: 205 - 217.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306.","Cresson ET. 1868. A list of the Ichneumonidae of North America, with descriptions of new species. Part II. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 2: 89 - 114. doi: 10.2307 / 25076198."]}

Linycus Cameron, 1903 Linycus Cameron, 1903: 234. Type species: Linycus rufipes Cameron, 1903, by monotypy. Comparative diagnosis From all the other four Nearctic Platylabini genera with small, circular or roundish propodeal spiracles – Apaeleticus, Carlsonia, Cyclolabus and Neolinycus – Linycus can be easily distinguished by the combination of different features. The subobsolete gastrocoeli, represented only by narrow and shallow, oblique, longitudinal depressions, bearing some coarse, irregular, longitudinal rugae (Figure 15d), set Linycus apart from Cyclolabus (which has strongly pronounced gastrocoeli, with thyridia larger than the space between them (Figure 13e)) and, in addition to these features, the presence of distinct propodeal carinae (Figure 15d) allows separation from Apaeleticus (which has a strongly reticulated and completely areolated propodeum (Figure 7a)). Lastly, Linycus differs from Carlsonia by the structure of the head, which is not as broad and strongly convex, but narrower and less bulging, and from Neolinycus Heinrich, by the structure of the temples, which are not strongly reduced, but moderately developed (Figure 15b) (Heinrich 1961, 1962b, 1977; Tereshkin 2009). Range and diversity The genus Linycus has a Holarctic and Oriental distribution, with four species in the Nearctic, only one occurring in the south-eastern United States (Heinrich 1962b, 1971, 1975; Yu et al. 2016)., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1892-1893, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Cameron P. 1903. Descriptions of ten new species and nine new genera of Ichneumonidae from India, Ceylon and Japan. Entomologist. 36: 233 - 241.","Heinrich G. 1961. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part I. Introduction, key to Nearctic genera of Ichcneumoninae Stenopneusticae, and synopsis of the Protichneumonini north of Mexico. Can Entomol. 15: 1 - 88. doi: 10.4039 / entm 9215 fv.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Tereshkin AM. 2009. Illustrated key to the tribes of subfamilia Ichneumoninae and genera of the tribe Platylabini of world fauna (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer biologische Beitrage. 41: 1317 - 1608.","Heinrich G. 1971. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). Supplement 2. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 98: 959 - 1026.","Heinrich G. 1975. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). Supplement 5: ichneumoninae of the Island of Newfoundland. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 753 - 782.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada)."]}

Platylabus flavidoclarus Heinrich, 1977 (Figure 24) Platylabus flavidoclarus Heinrich, 1977: 275 (descr., key); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 678 (cat.); Schmidt and Schmidt 2011: 75 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Holotype ♀, by original designation (ZSM). Type locality United States of America, Louisiana, Evangeline Co., ‘Chicot’. Current distribution (Figure 24) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Louisiana (Heinrich 1977). Host Unknown. Male Unknown. Comments This species is known only from the type locality and a single female specimen. Heinrich (1977, p. 275), while describing this species, acknowledged that it could represent a subspecies of P. clarus Cresson, 1867, adding the fact that if this is the case, then the male of P. clarus recorded for Louisiana should be attributed to the new taxon. However, he tentatively ranked P. flavidoclarus as a species. We have examined a male specimen, collected in Georgia, and housed at the FSCA, that could be a male of this species, due to the very extensive white markings on the entire body. However, more material is needed to corroborate our hypothesis and, therefore, we do not describe it here., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1907-1908, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Schmidt O, Schmidt S. 2011. Primary types of Ichneumoninae described by Gerd H. Heinrich deposited in the Zoologische Staatssammlung Munchen. Spixiana. 34: 59 - 107.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Cresson ET. 1867. A list of Ichneumonidae of North America, with descriptions of a new species. Part 1. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 1: 289 - 312. doi: 10.2307 / 25076182."]}

Cyclolabus gracilicornis gracilicornis (Provancher, 1886) (Figures 13, 14) Phygadeuon gracilicornis Provancher, 1886: 56 (descr., key); Cresson 1887: 194 (cat.); Gahan and Rohwer 1918b: 136 (lectotype designation). Herpistomus [sic] gracilicornis Davis 1895: 287 (incorrect subsequent spelling of genus, notes). Herpestomus gracilicornis Dalla Torre 1902: 764 (cat.). Ectopius gracilicornis Townes 1944: 315 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 281 (distr., cat.). Cyclolabus gracilicornis gracilicornis Heinrich 1962b: 763 (descr., distr., neallotype designation, key); Heinrich 1975: 779 (distr.); Barron 1975: 478 (invalid lectotype designation, notes); Bradley 1978: 3 (distr., host); Carlson 1979: 543 (cat., distr.); Sarazin 1987: 55 (cat.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 675 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Lectotype ♀, designated by Gahan and Rohwer (1918b, p. 136) (CNCI). Provancher (1886, p. 56) described Phygadeuon gracilicornis from ‘Ottawa (Harrington) [= collected by Harrington]’ without specifying the number of female specimens included in the description. Gahan and Rohwer (1918b, p. 136) designated a lectotype, addressing it as ‘Type– Female, Harrington Coll. Left antenna broken’. Subsequently, Heinrich (1962b, p. 763) incorrectly employed the term ‘Holotypus’ for a female specimen from ‘ Ontario (Ottawa). C.N.C’. Barron (1975, p. 478) designated a lectotype, arguing that both Gahan and Rohwer’s (1918b) and Heinrich’s (1962b) actions did not constitute valid lectotype designations since the authors ‘did not specify a particular specimen’. Barron’s (1975) observations appear to be wrong. Not being able to recognise the specimen in the collection does not invalidate the designation (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). Gahan and Rohwer’s (1918b, p. 136) designation is valid and Barron’s (1975) invalid. Heinrich (1962b, p. 763), on the other hand, was relatively more specific in referring to a female specimen housed at the CNCI. However, his employment of the term ‘holotypus’ was in error. Therefore, the valid lectotype designation is the one established by Gahan and Rohwer (1918b, p. 136), while Barron’s (1975, p. 478) designation should be considered invalid. Type locality Canada, Ottawa. No type locality is given on the lectotype labels, but the species has been described from Ottawa in the Harrington collection, now housed at CNCI. Type specimens examined (Figure 13) Lectotype. ‘[Red Label] TYPE/ Phygadeuon / gracilicornis /No. 58 Pr. // [Pink Label] P. 400 // [Yellow Label] 400/ Phygadeuon / gracilicornis ♀ / Prov./ = Herpestomus /G.C.P. // [Red Label] LECTOTYPE / Phygadeuon /gracili-/cornis/ PROVANCHER/[Written vertically on right side] Comeau/ Apr. 1940 // LECTOTYPE PHYGADEUON / GRACILICORNIS / Provancher P.400/ [Strikethrough] Gahan & Rohwer’15/Barron’71 // [White Label with blue contour] CNC/ 988670’ (CNCI) (images examined). Material examined CANADA, NOVA SCOTIA: Victoria Co., Baddeck, Beinn Bhreagh, Insect flight trap, 01–02 July 1977, leg. G.B. Fairchild, 1♂ (FSCA); idem, Highland Road, Mile 15, Insect Flight Trap, 04 August 1977, leg. G.B. Fairchild, 1♀ (FSCA). UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NEW YORK: Westchester Co., Armonk, Calder Center, Malaise trap, leg. C. Calmbacher, 12–18 July 1974, 1♀ (FSCA). Updated distribution (Figure 11a) CANADA: British Columbia (Bradley 1978); Newfoundland and Labrador (Heinrich 1962b; Bradley 1978; Heinrich 1975), Nova Scotia (new province record), Ontario (Provancher 1886; Bradley 1978), Québec (Bradley 1978). UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Maine (Heinrich 1962b), Michigan (Carlson 1979), New Hampshire (Heinrich 1962b), New York (Heinrich 1962b), North Carolina (Heinrich 1962b). Host Cladara limitaria nigroangulata Strecker, Eupithecia ornata Hulst (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) (Bradley 1978). Male The first description of a male was provided by Heinrich (1962b, p. 763), who referred to the specimen as the neallotype. Comments Davis (1895, p. 285) provides a new combination of this species under the generic name ‘ Herpistomus ’. We are not aware of Provancher having used the name Herpistomus for a genus in ichneumonids, and all other circumstances suggest that Berthoumieu must have had Herpestomus in mind. Therefore, and in agreement with Townes (1944, p. 315), we regard Herpistomus as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Herpestomus Wesmael, 1845 (ICZN 1999, Article 33.3). Following Heinrich (1959, p. 216), Probolus subdentatus Ashmead, 1902 is treated as a subspecies of Cyclolabus gracilicornis. This subspecies has a northern distribution but has been recorded by Heinrich (1962b) for North Carolina without any other information on the specificity of the record. Carlson (1979) reported the species for Michigan, but Yu et al. (2016) did not record it for the state. There is another subspecies, Cyclolabus gracilicornis subdentatus (Ashmead, 1902), within North America, but it does not occur in the south-east of the United States (Heinrich 1962b, p. 763)., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1888-1892, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Provancher L. 1886. Additions and corrections au Volume II de la Faune Entomologique du Canada. Traitant des Hymenopteres. Quebec (Canada): Typographie de C. Darveau; p. 475.","Cresson ET. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with a catalogue of the described species, and bibliography. Trans Am Entomol Soc, Supplementary Volume: 1 - 350.","Gahan AB, Rohwer SA. 1918 b. Lectotypes of the species of Hymenoptera (except Apoidea) described by Abbe Provancher. Can Entomol. 50 (4): 133 - 137. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 50133 - 4.","Davis GC. 1895. Review of a few more Provancher types of Ichneumonidae. Can Entomol. 27 (10): 287 - 290. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 27287 - 10.","Dalla Torre KW. 1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volumen 3. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Lipsiae: Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelman; p. VIII + 1141.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1975. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). Supplement 5: ichneumoninae of the Island of Newfoundland. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 753 - 782.","Barron JR. 1975. Provancher's collections of insects, particularly those of Hymenoptera, and a study of the types of his species of Ichneumonidae. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 387 - 591.","Bradley GA. 1978. Parasites of forest Lepidoptera in Canada. Part 2. Subfamily Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Ottawa (Canada): Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service; p. 97.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Sarazin MJ. 1987. Primary types of Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera) in the Canadian national collection. Mem Ent Soc Can. 137 (S 137): 3 - 123. doi: 10.4039 / entm 119137 fv.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306.","Cresson ET. 1864. Descriptions of North American Hymenoptera in the collection of the entomological society of Philadelphia. Proc Entomol Soc Philadelphia. 3: 257 - 321.","Wesmael C. 1845. Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 18: 1 - 239. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 66034.","Heinrich G. 1959. Revisional notes on the types of Ichneumoninae of Cresson, Cushman, Ashmead and others. Entomol News. 70: 205 - 217."]}

Apaeleticus americanus Cushman, 1926 (Figures 7a – 8) Apaeliticus americanus Cushman, 1926: 4 (descr.); Townes 1944: 310 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 280 (distr.; cat.); Strickland 1952: 120 (distr.); Heinrich 1962b: 792 (descr., distr., neallotype designation, fig., key); Heinrich 1977: 282 (descr., distr., key); Carlson 1979: 542 (cat., distr.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 673 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Holotype ♀, by original designation (USNM); paratype ♀ (USNM). Cushman (1926, p. 4) described the species based on two female specimens, clearly referring to the one collected on 7 September 1916 as ‘the type’, providing a catalogue number for it, and the one collected on Mount Katahdin as ‘the paratype’. Type locality United States of America, Maryland, ‘ Cabin John ’. Type specimens examined (Figure 7a–7d) Holotype: ‘[White Label] Cabin John/Md 7.ix’.16 // [White Label] RM Fouts/Collector // [Red label] Type No./ 27,682 / U.S. N.M. // [White Label] Apaeleticus / americanus /Type. Cush. // [White Label] USNMENT/[Barcode]/01524100’ (USNM) (images examined). Updated distribution (Figure 8) CANADA: Alberta (Townes and Townes 1951). UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Alabama (Heinrich 1977), Arizona (Carlson 1979), District of Columbia (Carlson 1979), Florida (Heinrich 1977), Louisiana (Heinrich 1977), Maine (Cushman 1926), Maryland (Cushman 1926), Tennessee (Heinrich 1977). Host Unknown. Male The first description of a male was provided by Heinrich (1962b, p. 792), who referred to the specimen as the neallotype. Comments The two records by Carlson (1979, p. 542) (Arizona and District of Columbia) were not listed in the catalogue by Yu et al. (2016). Heinrich (1977) acknowledged the possibility that the other Nearctic species of the genus, A. brunnescens Heinrich, 1962b, is simply a subspecies of A. americanus, while treating it as separate., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1881-1882, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Cushman RA. 1926. Ten new North American Ichneumon-flies. Proc US Natl Mus. 67 (2597): 1 - 13. doi: 10.5479 / si. 00963801.67 - 2597.1.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Strickland EH. 1952. Additions to the list of Ichneumonoidea from Alberta. Can Entomol. 84 (4): 118 - 122. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 84118 - 4.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada)."]}

Apaeleticus Wesmael, 1845 Apaeleticus Wesmael, 1845: 166. Type species: Apaeleticus bellicosus Wesmael, 1885, by subsequent designation of Ashmead (1900a: 22). Comparative diagnosis From all the other Nearctic Platylabini genera, Apaeleticus can be easily distinguished by this combination of characters: (1) strongly developed sternauli; (2) middle field of face strongly protruding (Figure 7c); (3) roughly irregularly cellular-wrinkled sculpture of propodeum with small, sharp teeth (Figure 7a); and (4) truncated apex of metasoma, with hidden sixth and seventh tergites retracted under the fifth (Figure 7c) (Heinrich 1961, 1962b; Tereshkin 2009). Range and diversity Only two species in the Nearctic, of which only one occurs in the south-eastern United States, Apaeleticus americanus Cushman, 1926. Notes There is a discrepancy in reporting the year of description of the genus, with Heinrich (1962b, p. 791) reporting 1844 and Yu et al. (2016) reporting 1845. The work by Wesmael (1845) has ‘1844’ printed on the cover of the article, but it was included in the journal Nouveaux Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique, volume 18, published in 1845, as reported by the cover of the journal itself. Therefore, the correct year of publication should be 1845., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1880-1881, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Wesmael C. 1845. Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 18: 1 - 239. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 66034.","Ashmead WH. 1900 a. Classification of the Ichneumon flies, or the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proc US Natl Mus. 23 (1206): 1 - 220. doi: 10.5479 / si. 00963801.23 - 1206.1.","Heinrich G. 1961. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part I. Introduction, key to Nearctic genera of Ichcneumoninae Stenopneusticae, and synopsis of the Protichneumonini north of Mexico. Can Entomol. 15: 1 - 88. doi: 10.4039 / entm 9215 fv.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Tereshkin AM. 2009. Illustrated key to the tribes of subfamilia Ichneumoninae and genera of the tribe Platylabini of world fauna (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer biologische Beitrage. 41: 1317 - 1608.","Cushman RA. 1926. Ten new North American Ichneumon-flies. Proc US Natl Mus. 67 (2597): 1 - 13. doi: 10.5479 / si. 00963801.67 - 2597.1.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada)."]}

Key to the tribes of Ichneumoninae of North America and genera ofPlatylabini of the south-eastern United States The following key is based on the results from Santos et al. (2021) and adapted from Heinrich (1961, 1962b), Tereshkin (2009), and Valemberg (2014). Since the character ‘first metasomal tergite broader than high’ (first couplet) can be difficult to score, Apaeleticus and Probolus can be keyed out from both statements in the first couplet. 1. First metasomal tergite wider than high with postpetiole dorsally strongly flattened (Figure 2a); clypeus gently to strongly convex (Figure 3a); metasoma of females amblypygous (Figures 13b, 22b, 26b, 32b, 34b, 36a)....... 2 (Platylabini) - First metasomal tergite not wider than high with postpetiole not dorsally strongly flattened (Figure 2b); clypeus either gently to strongly convex or entirely flat and wide (Figure 3b); metasoma of females amblypygous, oxypygous or semyamblypygous (fig. 2 in Santos et al. (2021))........................................................................................... 10 2. Postpetiolus, in lateral view, with an anterior hump medially (Figure 4b); sternites strongly sclerotised (Figure 34b); horizontal part of propodeum lacking distinct carinae (Figure 43d)............................................................................ Probolus Wesmael, 1845 - Postpetiolus, in lateral view, without an anterior hump medially (Figure 4a); sternites not strongly sclerotised (Figures 5a, 7c, 9b, 11b, 13b, 40a, 40d); horizontal part of propodeum with distinct carinae or with a rough reticulate-cellular sculpture (Figures 5d, 7a, 15d, 26d)............................................................................................................................. 3 3. Propodeum with long, pointed apophyses in both sexes (Figures 5d, 37a); area superomedia and area basalis not separated but forming together an area gradually widening towards the scutellum (Figure 5d); gastrocoeli relatively superficial, with thyridia smaller than the space between them (Figure 5d)................................................................................................................................................................... Ambloplisus Heinrich, 1930 - Propodeum without long apophyses, or at most with short, tooth-like projections (Figures 22b, 26d, 32b, 37b); area superomedia otherwise shaped, not fused with area basalis (Figures 13e, 20b, 22d, 26d); gastrocoeli and thryridia of various shapes........ 4 4. Spiracles of propodeum elongate, usually considerably longer than wide (ovate or linear) (Figures 9b, 22b, 22d, 37b)................................................................................................. 5 - Spiracles of propodeum small and circular (Figures 11b, 13e)......................................... 7 5. Gastrocoeli superficial; thyridia indistinct (Figure 9d)............................................................................................................................................................. Asthenolabus Heinrich, 1951 - Gastrocoeli large and rather deep; thyridia usually larger than the space between them (Figures 4a, 22d, 36c)............................................................................................................. 6 6. Mandible not twisted, appearing bidentate in frontal view; propodeal carinae not lamellate (Figure 22d); face not broad in frontal view, genae not strongly inflated (Figure 22c)........................................................................................ Platylabus Wesmael, 1845 - Mandibles twisted, appearing unidentate in frontal view; propodeal carinae strong and lamellate (Figure 37b); face broad in frontal view, genae strongly inflated (Figure 38b).................................................................................... Tropicolabus Heinrich, 1859 7. Propodeum with rough reticulate-cellular sculpture, carinae of propodeal areas indistinct, sinuate (Figure 7a); middle field of face strongly protruding (Figure 7c); gastrocoeli transverse and rather distinct; in females tergites 6 and 7 retracted under the 5th tergite (Figure 7c).......................................................... Apaeleticus Wesmael, 1845 - Propodeum usually without rough reticulate-cellular sculpture, carinae of propodeum distinct (Figures 13e, 15d, 20b); gastrocoeli either distinct or subobsolete (Figures 13e, 15d); apical tergites of females not retracted (Figures 13b, 5b).. 8 8. Gastrocoeli strongly impressed;thyridia larger than the space between them (Figure 13e)................................................................................................................................. Cyclolabus Heinrich, 1836 - Gastrocoeli superficial; thyridia indistinct or at most as large as the space between them (Figures 15d, 20b)................................................................................................................................................ 9 9. Gastrocoeli represented by a narrow and superficial, oblique, longitudinal depression, bearing some coarse, irregular, longitudinal rugae, their interspace and anterior half of 2nd tergite coarsely and densely, irregularly rugose; thyridia indistinct (Figure 15d); areolet clearly pentagonal (Figure 15b); temples not very reduced in lateral view (Figure 15b).................................................................................... Linycus Cameron, 1903 - Gastrocoeli superficial and thyridia transverse, each about as wide as their interspace; anterior part of 2nd tergite, including space of gastrocoeli, without rugosity (Figures 17a, 18, 19, 20b, 20c, 20f); areolet rhomboidal (Figure 20e); temples very reduced in lateral view (Figures 20a, 20d, 20e).......... Neolinycus Heinrich, 1971 10. Spiracles of propodeum small and circular (Figures 9b, 22b, 26d, 37b); clypeus from gently to strongly convex (Figures 3a, 7b)............................................................................. 11 - Spiracles of propodeum elongate, usually considerably longer than wide (ovate or linear) (Figures 22b, 26d); clypeus flat and wide or slighlty convex (Figures 3b, 34c).......................................................................................................................................................... 12 11. Propodeum with rough reticulate-cellular sculpture, carinae and propodeal areas indistinct, sinuate (Figure 13c)...................................................................... Apaeleticus Wesmael, 1845 (Platylabini) - Propodeum without rough reticulate-cellular sculpture, carinae and propodeal areas distinct................................................................................................................ Phaeogenini (not treated here) 12. Horizontal part of the propodeum without distinct carinae (Figure 34b); postpetiolus, in lateral view, with an anterior hump medially (Figure 5b); sternites strongly sclerotised (Figure 34b); clypeus slightly convex (Figure 34c); female metasoma always amblypygous (Figure 34b).............................................................. Probolus Wesmael, 1845 (Platylabini) - Horizontal part of the propodeum with distinct carinae; postpetiolus, in lateral view, usually without an anterior hump medially, if hump present (e.g. Patrocloides montanus (Cresson, 1864)), then propodeum with distinct carinae; sternites from strongly sclerotised to completely unsclerotised; female metasoma amblypygous, semiamblypygous or oxypygous (fig. 2 in Santos et al. (2021))............................ Ichneumonini (not treated here), Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1874-1878, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Santos BF, Wahl DB, Rousse P, Bennett AMR, Kula RR, Brady SG. 2021. Phylogenomics of Ichneumoninae (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) reveals pervasive morphological convergence and the shortcomings of previous classifications. Syst Entomol. 46 (3): 704 - 824. doi: 10.1111 / syen. 12484.","Heinrich G. 1961. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part I. Introduction, key to Nearctic genera of Ichcneumoninae Stenopneusticae, and synopsis of the Protichneumonini north of Mexico. Can Entomol. 15: 1 - 88. doi: 10.4039 / entm 9215 fv.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Tereshkin AM. 2009. Illustrated key to the tribes of subfamilia Ichneumoninae and genera of the tribe Platylabini of world fauna (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer biologische Beitrage. 41: 1317 - 1608.","Valemberg J. 2014. Fauna Palearctica. Genera Ichneumonologica. Clef Descriptive - I - Ichneumoninae. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France, Supplement: 1 - 93.","Cresson ET. 1864. Descriptions of North American Hymenoptera in the collection of the entomological society of Philadelphia. Proc Entomol Soc Philadelphia. 3: 257 - 321.","Cresson ET. 1867. A list of Ichneumonidae of North America, with descriptions of a new species. Part 1. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 1: 289 - 312. doi: 10.2307 / 25076182.","Heinrich G. 1972. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). Supplement 3. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 99: 173 - 211.","Brulle GA. 1846. Hymenopteres. Tome Quatrieme. In: Lepeletier A, editor. Histoire naturelles des insectes. Paris: Librairie Encyclopedique de Roret; p. viii + 680.","Wesmael C. 1845. Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 18: 1 - 239. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 66034.","Cresson ET. 1868. A list of the Ichneumonidae of North America, with descriptions of new species. Part II. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 2: 89 - 114. doi: 10.2307 / 25076198.","Heinrich G. 1930. Einige neue Genera und Species der Subfam. Ichneumoninae Ashm. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin. 15: 543 - 555.","Heinrich G. 1951. Ichneumoniden der Steiermark (Hym.). Bonner zoologische Beitrage. 2: 235 - 290.","Cushman RA. 1926. Ten new North American Ichneumon-flies. Proc US Natl Mus. 67 (2597): 1 - 13. doi: 10.5479 / si. 00963801.67 - 2597.1.","Cameron P. 1903. Descriptions of ten new species and nine new genera of Ichneumonidae from India, Ceylon and Japan. Entomologist. 36: 233 - 241.","Heinrich G. 1971. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). Supplement 2. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 98: 959 - 1026."]}

Ambloplisus ornatus (Cresson, 1868) (Figures 5, 6, 37a, 38a, 39a, 40a–c) Hoplismenus ornatus Cresson, 1868: 92 (descr.); Cresson 1916: 47 (type). ? Amblyteles ornatus Cresson 1877: 194 (key, descr., notes). Amblyteles ornatus Cresson 1887: 190 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 828 (cat.); Cushman 1928: 924 (cat., notes); Nason 1905: 149 (distr.). Hoplismenus ovatus [sic]; Berthoumieu 1904: 30 (cat., distr., incorrect subsequent spelling). Thaumatoteles ornatus Hopper 1938: 105 (descr.); Townes 1944: 314 (cat, syn.); Townes and Townes 1951: 281 (distr.; cat.). Ambloplisus ornatus Heinrich 1959: 216 (notes); Heinrich 1962b: 790 (descr., distr., neallotype designation, key); Peck 1964: 918 (index); Heinrich 1977: 277 (descr., distr., key); Carlson 1979: 547 (cat., distr., notes); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 672 (cat.); Tereshkin 2009: 1486, 1589 (descr., fig.); Tereshkin 2013: 1235 (fig.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Holotype ♀, by monotypy (ANSP). Cresson (1868, p. 92) clearly stated that the description was based on only ‘ one ♀ specimen’ from New York. This specimen can be referred to as the holotype designated by monotypy (ICZN 1999, Article 73.1.2). Type locality United States of America, New York. Type specimens examined (Figures 38a, 40a–c) Holotype: ‘[White label] N. Y. // [White label] ornatus /Cres. // [Red label] TYPE No./ 1244 – ’ (specimen examined). Material examined UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA: Alachua Co., Gainesville, Florida Rock Cr., M. Trap 2, 09–15 May 1983, leg. Gupta, 1♀ (FSCA); idem, 01–08 April 1983, 1♀ (FSCA); idem, May 1984, 1♀ (FSCA); idem, 24-30 June 1983, 2♀♀ (FSCA); Orange Co., UCF MacKay Tract, Sawgrass Marsh/Red Maple, 29 November 2012, leg. S. McCarthy & S.M. Fullerton, 1♀ (UCFC); Seminole Co, Oviedo, Bayhead /LLP Scrubby, Flatwoods Transition, Malaise trap, 28.6219°N, 81.1736°W, 22 May 2011, leg. Gochnour, 1♀ (UCFC); idem, 12 June 2011, 1♀ (UCFC); idem, 03 July 2021, 1♀ (UCFC); GEORGIA: Athens, Bot. Garden M.Tr., 04 May 1983, leg. Gupta, 4♂♂ (FSCA); Cobb Co., Smyrna, M. Trap 3, leg. Gupta, 1♀ (FSCA); MASSACHUSETTS: Groton, Middlesex Co., 21 July 2011, det. B. Carlson, 1♂ (BugGuide); idem, 22 July 2011, 2♂ (BugGuide); idem, 29 July 2011, 1♀ (BugGuide); 30 July 2011, 1♂ (BugGuide). Updated distribution (Figure 6) MEXICO (Berthoumieu 1904); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Florida (Heinrich 1977), Georgia (new state record), Iowa (Heinrich 1962b, wrongly mentioned as Idaho, see Comments), Illinois (Nason 1905), Maryland (Townes and Townes 1951), Massachusetts (Carlson 2011), New York (Cresson 1868), North Carolina (Heinrich 1962b). Host Unknown. Male The first description of a male was provided by Heinrich (1962b, p. 790), who referred to the specimen as the neallotype and stated that the specimen was tentatively placed under Ambloplisus ornatus because of the colour variation between the two sexes. The association was later confirmed by Heinrich (1977, p. 277), who collected on the ‘same small bush’ first the female and subsequently thereafter the male. Comments Townes and Townes (1951, p. 281) reported the species for Maryland (not recorded by Yu et al. 2016), New York, and New Jersey. However, the New Jersey record belongs to Tropicolabus foxi (Davis, 1898), a species that was synonymised under Ambloplisus ornatus by Townes (1944, p. 314) (as Platylabus foxi), and later resurrected by Heinrich (1959, p. 216), who placed it under the newly described genus Tropicolabus Heinrich (see below). Therefore, Ambloplisus ornatus is not known for New Jersey. The records from Massachusetts and Ohio are from BugGuide and identified by Carlson (2011) as Ambloplisus ornatus. However, these have not been recorded in any paper or catalogue (see Yu et al. 2016). Another record missing from Yu et al. (2016) is the one from Illinois by Nason (1905, p. 149) whose specimens were identified by the Ichneumonid expert G.C. Davis. Heinrich (1962b, p. 790) reported a specimen in the USNM from Idaho, but as noted by Carlson (1979, p. 547), who analysed the same specimen, the actual locality is in Iowa. Unfortunately, Yu et al. (2016) listed Idaho as a locality for the species, without mentioning Iowa. Berthoumieu (1904, p. 30) reported the species ‘ Hoplismenus ovatus Cress’. for Mexico. We are not aware of Cresson having used the name ovatus for a species in this insect group, and all other circumstances suggest that Berthomieu must have had H. ornatus in mind. Therefore, and in agreement with Townes (1944, p. 314), we regard H. ovatus as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Hoplismenus ornatus Cresson, 1868 (ICZN 1999, Article 33.3). Yu et al. (2016) failed to report Berthoumieu (1904) and Mexico was not included in the distribution of the species., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1879-1880, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Cresson ET. 1868. A list of the Ichneumonidae of North America, with descriptions of new species. Part II. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 2: 89 - 114. doi: 10.2307 / 25076198.","Cresson ET. 1916. The Cresson types of Hymenoptera. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 1: 1 - 146.","Cresson ET. 1877. Notes on the species belonging to the subfamily Ichneumonides, found in America north of Mexico. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 6: 129 - 212. doi: 10.2307 / 25076321.","Cresson ET. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with a catalogue of the described species, and bibliography. Trans Am Entomol Soc, Supplementary Volume: 1 - 350.","Dalla Torre KW. 1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volumen 3. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Lipsiae: Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelman; p. VIII + 1141.","Cushman RA. 1928. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Leonard MD, editor. A list of the insects of New York. New York (NY): Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station; p. 920 - 960.","Nason WA. 1905. Parasiti Hymenoptera of Algonquin, Illinois. - I. Entomol News. 16: 145 - 152.","Berthoumieu V. 1904. Fam. Ichneumonidae, Subfam. Ichneumoninae. Gen Ins. 18: 1 - 87.","Hopper HP. 1938. A new genus and four new species of Nearctic Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Trans Am Entomol Soc. 64: 97 - 106.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Heinrich G. 1959. Revisional notes on the types of Ichneumoninae of Cresson, Cushman, Ashmead and others. Entomol News. 70: 205 - 217.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Peck O. 1964. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VIII. Addenda and Corrigenda, host-parasite list and generic host index, index to Ichneumonid names. Mem Ent Soc Canada. 96 (S 35): 891 - 925. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9635 fv.","Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Tereshkin AM. 2009. Illustrated key to the tribes of subfamilia Ichneumoninae and genera of the tribe Platylabini of world fauna (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer biologische Beitrage. 41: 1317 - 1608.","Tereshkin AM. 2013. Guide to preparing scientific illustrations in Entomology on an example of Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Linzer biologische beitrage. 45: 1047 - 1277.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306.","Carlson B. 2011. Ambloplisus ornatus. BugGuide; [accessed 2021 Oct 18]. https: // bugguide. net / node / view / 583221.","Davis GC. 1898. Descriptions of new species of Trigonalidae, Stephanidae and Ichneumonidae. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 24: 349 - 372."]}

Tropicolabus Heinrich, 1959 Tropicolabus Heinrich, 1959: 216. Type species Platylabus foxi Davis, 1898, by original designation. Comparative diagnosis Heinrich (1959, p. 216), and later Heinrich (1962b, p. 754), specified that Tropicolabus differed from Platylabus because of the ‘upwards curbed [sic] apophyses of the propodeum’, a character shared instead with Ambloplisus. After a careful examination of the type species and the first female, it is safe to conclude that the upward apophyses are in fact simply tooth-like projections formed by the conjunction of the strongly lamellate propodeal carinae (Figure 37b). This character can be seen in several other Platylabini species (e.g. Platylabus clarus), and does not constitute apophyses as in the case of Ambloplisus ornatus (Figure 37a) or as delineated by Ronquist and Nordlander (1989). Therefore, the primary diagnostic character proposed by Heinrich (1959) during the establishment of the new genus does not allow an unambiguous separation between Tropicolabus and Platylabus. However, we do not feel the need to synonymise the two genera (and therefore restore the original combination for the species), to avoid further complications within the tribe. For the purpose of this contribution, Tropicolabus can be easily separated from Platylabus employing other characters, one of which was not previously mentioned by Heinrich (1959, 1962b). According to our examination, Tropicolabus can be distinguished from Platylabus by the following combination of characters: presence of twisted mandibles, appearing unidentate in frontal view (bidentate in Platylabus); the predominantly smooth and shining mesoscutum, with dense punctures only in the anterior half (Figure 36b); and lamellate propodeal carinae (Figure 37b) (never lamellate in Platylabus). The misinterpretation of the propodeal tooth-like projection also impacts the separation between Tropicolabus and Ambloplisus, which can now be easily distinguished by the following characters: the tooth-like propodeal carinae (Figure 37b) (and not long apophyses as in Aploplisus, Figure 37a); the strongly impressed gastrocoeli and thyridia as large as or larger than the space between them, the strong and large gastrocoeli (Figure 36c) (superficial and small in Amploplisus, Figure 5d); the broad genae in frontal view (Figure 38b) (convergent in Ambloplisus, Figure 38a); temples roundly narrowed in dorsal view (Figure 39b) (steeply, almost concavely narrowed in Ambloplisusi, Figure 39a) the propodeum with the area superomedia separated from the area basalis (Figure 37b) (a single elongate area in Ambloplisus, Figure 5c). Range and diversity The genus is monotypic and, so far, has been recorded only in the Nearctic, even though some comments in Santos et al. (2021, supplement S8) seem to confirm its presence in Costa Rica (unpublished material). Heinrich (1962b, p. 755) already hypothesised a more tropical distribution of the genus based on the rich yellow colour pattern on the thorax, typical of Neotropical species. Prior to this contribution, the genus was known only for the north-eastern United States and only from the type locality., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1925-1927, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Heinrich G. 1959. Revisional notes on the types of Ichneumoninae of Cresson, Cushman, Ashmead and others. Entomol News. 70: 205 - 217.","Davis GC. 1898. Descriptions of new species of Trigonalidae, Stephanidae and Ichneumonidae. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 24: 349 - 372.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Ronquist F, Nordlander G. 1989. Skeletal morphology of an archaic cynipoid, Ibalia rufipes (Hymenoptera: Ibaliidae). Entomologica Scandinavica - Supplementum. 33: 1 - 60.","Cresson ET. 1868. A list of the Ichneumonidae of North America, with descriptions of new species. Part II. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 2: 89 - 114. doi: 10.2307 / 25076198.","Santos BF, Wahl DB, Rousse P, Bennett AMR, Kula RR, Brady SG. 2021. Phylogenomics of Ichneumoninae (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) reveals pervasive morphological convergence and the shortcomings of previous classifications. Syst Entomol. 46 (3): 704 - 824. doi: 10.1111 / syen. 12484."]}

Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria, Welter-Schultes, Francisco (2022): Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species. Journal of Natural History 56: 1869-1938, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061

Linycus exhortator thoracicus (Cresson, 1864) (Figures 15, 16) Hoplismenus thoracicus Cresson, 1864: 288 (descr.); Cresson 1916: 59 (cat.). Platylabus thoracicus Cresson 1877: 201 (distr., key, notes, syn.); Provancher 1879: 37 (descr., key); Provancher 1883: 306 (descr., key); Provancher 1886: 36 (key); Smith 1890: 23 (distr.); Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (distr.); Dalla Torre 1902: 790 (cat.); Cushman 1928: 927 (cat.). Apaeleticus thoracicus Bradley 1903: 275 (notes). Platylabus (Apaeleticus) thoracicus Viereck 1917: 343 (key). Ectopius thoracicus Townes 1944: 316 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 282 (distr., cat.). Ectopius exhortator thoracicus Heinrich 1956: 651 (descr.). Linycus exhortator thoracicus Heinrich 1962b: 780 (descr., distr., key); Heinrich 1977: 279 (descr., distr.); Carlson 1979: 542 (cat., distr.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 675 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Lecotype ♀ (originally described as ♂ by Cresson (1864), see below) (ANSP). Cresson (1864, p. 288) described Hoplismenus thoracicus from ‘Hab.– Pennsylvania. Mr.Tryon Reakirt [= collected by Mr.Tryon Reakirt]’ reporting it as a male but without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Cresson (1916, p. 59), in his list of types, reported the lectotype having the ‘Left antenna off’. Townes (1944, p. 316) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 282) did not specify any number of specimens, but simply reported the information given in the literature. Later on, Heinrich (1962b, p. 780) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’, highlighting the fact that the actual sex is female and not male. Carlson (1979, p. 317) stated that Cresson (1916, p. 1) ‘indicated which single specimen was to be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had described a species from more than one specimen’. Hopper (1984, p. 968) reported being unable to see how it can be claimed that Cresson (1916) indicated a single specimen to be the type. This statement contradicted Cresson’s (1916) own statement that ‘In selecting the single type the author has been governed by the present condition of the original material, and has always selected the perfect, or more nearly perfect specimen’ and suggests that Hopper (1984) overlooked this clear indication of Cresson’s (1916) intention of selecting a single name-bearing type (i.e. a lectotype in the modern sense). Cresson’s (1916) lectotype designation was valid and no subsequent lectotype designation has any validity (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). The fact that the selected specimen eventually could no longer be traced, as suggested by various subsequent authors (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780; Hopper 1984), could be explained by collection mismanagement and has no influence on the validity of the lectotype selection. Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can provide more insights. Moreover, the mismatch between the original sex description by Cresson (1916, p. 59) (male) and the observation of a female by Heinrich (1962b, p. 780) is troubling. Hopper (1984, p. 968) experienced a similar situation when, looking at Cresson’s type housed at ANSP and stored in a separate case, he found a mismatch of sexes between the original description and the segregated specimen. Apparently, the two former curators of the collection had personally hand-picked the specimens from the original type series and stored them in a different drawer, and because they both worked on different taxa, they were not skilled in identifying the sex of Ichneumonidae (Hopper 1984, p. 968). Therefore, there is a real possibility that the original description contained more than one specimen and that the curators at ANSP selected only one specimen that later was regarded as the ‘holotype’ by Heinrich (1962b, p. 780). Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can resolve the issue. Type locality United States of America, Pennsylvania. Material examined UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MASSACHUSETTS: Cambridge, Middlesex County, 02 October 2010, det. B. Carlson, 2♂♂ (BugGuide); idem, Worcester County, Bolton, 1 September 2010, 2♂♂ (BugGuide); OHIO: Greene County, Beavercreek, 14 September 2013, det. B. Carlson, 1♂ (BugGuide); NEW HAMPSHIRE: Grafton Co., Bedell Bridge S.P., Oliverian Brook, Malaise Trap, 30 September–21 October 1992, leg. D.S. Chandler, 1♀ (UNHC); Westchester Co., Armonk, Calder Center, Malaise Trap, 26 July–02 August 1974, leg. C. Calmbacher, 1♂ (UNHC); idem, 12–18 July 1974 (UNHC); NEW YORK: Albany Co., nr. Rensselaerville Huyck Preserve, Malaise trap, 17 August 1967, 1♂ (FSCA); TENNESSEE: Sevier Co., GSMNP Twin Creek R.C., old field, Malaise Trap, 1945 ft, 35.685972°N, 83.500361°W, 20–22 October 2003, leg. Steck, Sutton & Mayor, 2♀♀ (UCFC); idem, 07– 14 May 2004, 1♂ (UCFC); Blount Co., GSMNP Cades Co., Abrams Crk., old field – gallery forest edge, 1720 ft, 35.593056°N, 83.842500°W, 09–17 July 2003, leg. Steck, Sutton & Mayor, 1♂ (UCFC); VIRGINIA: Smyth Co., 09 May 1975, 1♀ (VMNH). Updated distribution (Figure 16) CANADA: Ontario (Heinrich 1962b); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Georgia (Heinrich 1977), Indiana (Heinrich 1962b), Maine (Heinrich 1962b), Massachusetts (Carlson 2010a), Michigan (Heinrich 1962b), Missouri (Heinrich 1962b), New Hampshire (Cresson 1877), New Jersey (Smith 1890), New York (Cresson 1877), Ohio (Carlson 2011), Pennsylvania (Cresson 1864, 1877), Rhode Island (Townes and Townes 1951); Tennessee (Heinrich 1977), Virginia (new state record). Host Although host records for the subspecies thoracicus are unknown, the nominate subspecies (Europe) is a parasitoid of Geomemetridae (Lepidoptera) (Shaw et al. 2015). Male The first description of a male was provided by Heinrich (1956, p. 651). However, Heinrich (1956, p. 651) did not realise the problem with the sex of the syntypes (see above, Type series), and believed he had described the female for the first time. Comments The species Linycus exhortator (Fabricius, 1787) is represented by three subspecies, one with a European distribution (the nominotypical subspecies), and the other two occurring in the Nearctic (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780). Of these two, only one occurs in the south-eastern United States, L. exhortator thoracicus. Unfortunately, there are some issues regarding the state distribution of this latter subspecies within the US. Townes and Townes (1951, p. 282) reported only three states for the distribution of the subspecies, namely New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Yu et al. (2016) did not report Rhode Island in their catalogue. Another issue revolves around Carlson (1979, p. 542). In his catalogue, the author mentioned the species as occurring from ‘ Maine s. to Va., w. to Wis. And Mo’. This distribution probably stems from the idea already advanced by Heinrich (1977, p. 279) that the taxon is probably widespread throughout the eastern part of the country, ‘From Michigan and Ontario south to Georgia and Tennessee’. However, these statements are too vague and inconsistent, and it is not clear whether they are substantiated by any specimens. Therefore, we are not considering Heinrich’s (1977) and Carlson’s (1979) vague statements to represent valid distributional records – even though they are very probably true. The records from Massachusetts and Ohio are from BugGuide and identified by Carlson (2010a, 2013) as Linycus exhortator., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1893-1895, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Cresson ET. 1864. Descriptions of North American Hymenoptera in the collection of the entomological society of Philadelphia. Proc Entomol Soc Philadelphia. 3: 257 - 321.","Cresson ET. 1916. The Cresson types of Hymenoptera. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 1: 1 - 146.","Cresson ET. 1877. Notes on the species belonging to the subfamily Ichneumonides, found in America north of Mexico. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 6: 129 - 212. doi: 10.2307 / 25076321.","Provancher L. 1879. Faune Canadienne. Les Insectes-Hymenopteres. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 11 (1 - 13): 33 - 43.","Provancher L. 1883. Petite faune entomologique du Canada et particulierement de la province de Quebec. Vol. II. Comprenant les Orthopteres, les Nevropteres et les Hymenopteres. Quebec: C. Darveau; p. 830. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 38552.","Provancher L. 1886. Additions and corrections au Volume II de la Faune Entomologique du Canada. Traitant des Hymenopteres. Quebec (Canada): Typographie de C. Darveau; p. 475.","Smith JB. 1890. Catalogue of the insects found in New Jersey. Trenton (NJ): The John L. Murphy Publishing Company; p. 486. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 7907.","Cresson ET. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with a catalogue of the described species, and bibliography. Trans Am Entomol Soc, Supplementary Volume: 1 - 350.","Ashmead WH. 1900 b. Order Hymenoptera. In: Smith JB, editor. Insects of New Jersey, with notes on those of economic importance. Trenton: McCrellish & Quingley; p. 501 - 613.","Dalla Torre KW. 1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volumen 3. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Lipsiae: Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelman; p. VIII + 1141.","Cushman RA. 1928. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Leonard MD, editor. A list of the insects of New York. New York (NY): Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station; p. 920 - 960.","Bradley JC. 1903. The Genus Platylabus, Wesmael, with descriptions of two new species. Can Entomol. 35 (10): 275 - 283. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 35275 b- 10.","Viereck HL. 1917. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Part III. The Hymenoptera, or wasp-like insects of Connecticut. Ichneumonoidea. Hartford (CT): State of Connecticut; p. 824.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Heinrich G. 1956. Holarctic elements among the Ichneumoninae of Canada. Can Entomol. 88 (11): 647 - 652. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 88647 - 11.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Hopper HP. 1984. On the question of the selector of the lectotypes of the species of Ichneumonidae describe by Ezra Townsend Cresson. Proc Entomol Soc Wash. 86: 968.","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306.","Carlson B. 2010 a. Linycus exhortator. BugGuide; [accessed 2021 Nov 11]. https: // bugguide. net / node / view / 461033.","Carlson B. 2011. Ambloplisus ornatus. BugGuide; [accessed 2021 Oct 18]. https: // bugguide. net / node / view / 583221.","Shaw M, Kan P, Kan-van Limburg Stirum B. 2015. Emergence behaviour of adult Trogus lapidator (Fabricius) (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae, Heresiarchini) from pupa of its host Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae), with a comparative overview of emergence of Ichneumonidae from Lepidoptera pupae in Europe. J Hymenopt Res. 47: 65 - 85.","Carlson B. 2013. Linycus exhortator. BugGuide; [accessed 2021 Nov 11]. https: // bugguide. net / node / view / 458981."]}

Cyclolabus Heinrich, 1935 Cyclolabus Heinrich, 1935: 198. Type species: Platylabus nigricollis Wesmael, 1845 by original designation. Comparative diagnosis From all the other four Nearctic Platylabini genera with small circular or roundish propodeal spiracles – Apaeleticus, Carlsonia, Cyclolabus and Linycus – Cyclolabus can be easily distinguished by: the strongly pronounced gastrocoeli; thryidia larger than the space between them; and the presence of distinct propodeal carinae (Figure 10). Cyclolabus is also morphologically similar to Platylabus Wesmael, 1845, mainly differing from it by the presence of small and circular propodeal spiracles (Figure 22) (Heinrich 1961, 1962b; Tereshkin 2009). However, as already noted by Heinrich (1962b), the small species of Platylabus can also possess roundish and relatively small spiracles, rendering the demarcation of the two genera ambiguous for certain specimens. In these latter cases, the observation of other characters is necessary, and we have listed them under the genus Platylabus. Range and diversity Cyclolabus has a worldwide distribution, with 11 species in the Nearctic and only two species occurring in the south-eastern United States (Heinrich 1961, 1962b; Yu et al. 2016). Key to the species of Cyclolabus from the south-eastern United States (adapted from Heinrich (1962b)) 1. Scutellum and mesoscutum ferruginous (Figures 13a–13e); pronotal ridge ferruginous (Figure 13a); inner orbit ferruginous or light ferruginous (Figure 13c).............................................................................................. gracilicornis gracilicornis (Provancher, 1886) - Scutellum yellowish white, mesoscutum ferruginous (Figure 11a); pronotal ridge yellowish white (Figure 11a); entire face yellowish white (Figure 11c)........................................................................................................................................... carolinensis (Heinrich, 1962), Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1886-1887, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Heinrich G. 1935. Zur Systematik der Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae VII. (Hym.). Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift. 1935: 191 - 200. doi: 10.1002 / mmnd. 48019350302.","Wesmael C. 1845. Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 18: 1 - 239. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 66034.","Heinrich G. 1961. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part I. Introduction, key to Nearctic genera of Ichcneumoninae Stenopneusticae, and synopsis of the Protichneumonini north of Mexico. Can Entomol. 15: 1 - 88. doi: 10.4039 / entm 9215 fv.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Tereshkin AM. 2009. Illustrated key to the tribes of subfamilia Ichneumoninae and genera of the tribe Platylabini of world fauna (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer biologische Beitrage. 41: 1317 - 1608.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Provancher L. 1886. Additions and corrections au Volume II de la Faune Entomologique du Canada. Traitant des Hymenopteres. Quebec (Canada): Typographie de C. Darveau; p. 475."]}

Tribe Platylabini Berthoumieu 1904 (Ichneumonidae, Ichneumoninae) Traditionally, the diagnostic traits used to identify the tribe Platylabini have been the following: (1) a convex clypeus; (2) first metasomal tergite broader than high with postpetiole dorsally strongly flattened; and (3) amblypygous metasoma in females (Heinrich 1961, 1967a, 1967b; Townes et al. 1961; Tereshkin 2009). However, as extensively discussed by Santos et al. (2021, supplement S8) the tribe, as above defined, excludes at least two genera well nested within the tribe: Probolus Wesmael, 1845, and Cotiheresiarches Telenga, 1929. The authors concluded that, for the moment, it is impractical to provide a succinct diagnosis of the tribe and, with a couple of exceptions (Eurylabus Wesmael, 1845 and Levansa Townes, 1961), all the Ichneumoninae with a flattened petiole are surely Platylabini. Even though more in-depth morphological analyses will be necessary to better delineate the diagnosis of the tribe, we also believe that a practical key to the tribes and to the Platylabini genera can facilitate identification., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on page 1873, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Berthoumieu V. 1904. Fam. Ichneumonidae, Subfam. Ichneumoninae. Gen Ins. 18: 1 - 87.","Heinrich G. 1961. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part I. Introduction, key to Nearctic genera of Ichcneumoninae Stenopneusticae, and synopsis of the Protichneumonini north of Mexico. Can Entomol. 15: 1 - 88. doi: 10.4039 / entm 9215 fv.","Heinrich G. 1967 a. Synopsis and reclassification of the Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae of Africa south of Sahara (Hym.). vol. 1. Introduction; key to tribes and subtribes of Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae; Synopsis of the Protichneumonini, Ceratojoppini, Ischnojoppini, Trogini. Maine: Farmington State College Press; p. 250.","Heinrich G. 1967 b. Synopsis and reclassification of the Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae of Africa south of Sahara (Hym.). vol. 2. Maine: Farmington State College Press; p. 230.","Townes HK, Townes M, Gupta VK. 1961. A catalogue and reclassification of the Indo-Australian Ichneumonidae. Mem Am Entomol Ins. 1: 1 - 522.","Tereshkin AM. 2009. Illustrated key to the tribes of subfamilia Ichneumoninae and genera of the tribe Platylabini of world fauna (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Linzer biologische Beitrage. 41: 1317 - 1608.","Santos BF, Wahl DB, Rousse P, Bennett AMR, Kula RR, Brady SG. 2021. Phylogenomics of Ichneumoninae (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) reveals pervasive morphological convergence and the shortcomings of previous classifications. Syst Entomol. 46 (3): 704 - 824. doi: 10.1111 / syen. 12484.","Wesmael C. 1845. Tentamen dispositionis methodicae. Ichneumonum Belgii. Nouveaux Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique. 18: 1 - 239. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 66034."]}

Platylabus opaculus americanus Heinrich, 1962 (Figures 26, 27) Platylabus opaculus americanus Heinrich, 1962b: 730 (descr., key, allotype designation); Heinrich 1975: 774 (distr.); Carlson 1979: 545 (cat., distr., notes); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 679 (cat.); Schmidt and Schmidt 2011: 90 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Holotype ♀, by original designation (ZSM); allotype 1♂ (CNCI); paratypes: 3♀♀ (ZSM), 3♀♀ (CNCI), 3♀♀ (EMUS). Type locality United States of America, Maine, Alagash. c) Habitus, lateral view. Material examined UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MASSACHUSETTS: Rowley, Essex Country, 30 August 2010, det. R. Carlson, 2♀♀ (BugGuide); NORTH CAROLINA: Mt. Pisgah, elevation 4[000]– 5000 ft., 5 July 1959, leg. H.V. Weems, det. Townes 1967, 1♀ (FSCA). Updated distribution (Figure 27) CANADA: Alberta (Heinrich 1962b); British Columbia (Heinrich 1962b); Québec (Heinrich 1962b); Newfoundland and Labrador (Heinrich 1975); Ontario (Heinrich 1962b); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Maine (Heinrich 1962b); Massachusetts (Carlson 2010b) Michigan (Heinrich 1962b); New York (Heinrich 1962b); North Carolina (new state record); Oregon (Heinrich 1962b); Washington (Heinrich 1962b). Host Unknown. Male Described by Heinrich (1962b, p. 730) in the original description, based on a single male that he designated as allotype. The other two known male specimens of the species are from Newfoundland and Labrador, recorded by Heinrich (1975, p. 774). Comments Platylabus opaculus Thomson, 1888, is split in two subspecies, one with European distribution (the nominotypical subspecies), and the other occurring in the Nearctic (Heinrich 1962b, p. 730). According to Heinrich (1962b, p. 730), the only difference between the two is the colour of the legs, which are entirely black in Platylabus opaculus opaculus and rufous in Platylabus opaculus americanus. The records from Massachusetts are from BugGuide and identified by Carlson (2010b) as Platylabus opaculus. However, these have not been recorded in any paper or catalogue (see Yu et al. 2016). The new record for North Carolina is based on a female specimen found at the FSCA that Townes identified as Platylabus opaculus americanus in 1967, which DDP double checked, confirming Townes’ identification. The record has never been reported in any paper or catalogue (cf. Yu et al. 2016), and apparently Heinrich (1975) was not aware of it since no mention of it appears in his paper. The record of Platylabus opaculus americanus for North Carolina also marks the southernmost distributional record for the subspecies and the first for the south-eastern United States (Figure 22b)., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1911-1913, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1975. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). Supplement 5: ichneumoninae of the Island of Newfoundland. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 753 - 782.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Schmidt O, Schmidt S. 2011. Primary types of Ichneumoninae described by Gerd H. Heinrich deposited in the Zoologische Staatssammlung Munchen. Spixiana. 34: 59 - 107.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Provancher L. 1875. Les Ichneumonides de Quebec. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 7: 175 - 183.","Carlson B. 2010 b. Platylabus opaculus. BugGuide; [accessed 2021 Dec 01]. https: // bugguide. net / node / view / 449395."]}

Platylabus hyperetis Heinrich, 1962 (Figure 25) Platylabus hyperetis Heinrich, 1962b: 707 (descr., key, allotype designation); Heinrich 1977: 275 (descr., distr., key); Bradley 1978: 7 (distr., host); Carlson 1979: 544 (cat., distr.); Butler 1993: 506 (host); Schmidt and Schmidt 2011: 79 (cat.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 679 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Holotype ♀, by original designation (ZSM); Allotype 1♂ (ZSM); paratypes: 3♀♀ and 1♂ (ZSM), 1♂ (CNCI). Type locality United States of America, Maine, ‘New Portland’. Updated distribution (Figure 25) CANADA: British Columbia (Heinrich 1962b; Bradley 1978), Saskatchewan (Bradley 1978); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Arkansas (Heinrich 1977), Maine (Heinrich 1962b), West Virginia (Butler 1993). Host Plagodis alcoolaria Guenée (Bradley 1978), Plagodis serinaria Herrich-Schaffer (Butler 1993), Probole amicaria Herrich-Schaffer (Heinrich 1962b; Heinrich 1977) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Male Described by Heinrich (1962b, p. 707) from three males, one of which was designated as allotype. Comments Carlson (1979, p. 544) did not take Bradley’s (1978) paper into consideration and listed only Probole amicaria Herrich-Schaffer as the species host. Butler (1993, p. 506), in listing the parasitoids from Macrolepidoptera, indirectly recorded the species for the first time from West Virginia., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1909-1911, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Bradley GA. 1978. Parasites of forest Lepidoptera in Canada. Part 2. Subfamily Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Ottawa (Canada): Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service; p. 97.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Butler L. 1993. Parasitoids associated with the microlepidoptera community at Cooper's Rock State Forest, West Virginia: a baseline study. Proc Entomol Soc Wash. 95: 504 - 510.","Schmidt O, Schmidt S. 2011. Primary types of Ichneumoninae described by Gerd H. Heinrich deposited in the Zoologische Staatssammlung Munchen. Spixiana. 34: 59 - 107.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada)."]}

Platylabus rubricapensis Provancher, 1882 (Figures 30, 31) Platylabus Rubri Capensis Provancher, 1882: 329 (descr.). Platylabus Rubricapensis Provancher 1886: 35 (key). Platylabus rubricapensis Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 788 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 281 (distr., key, fig.); Berthoumieu 1904: 57 (cat.); Gahan and Rohwer 1918a: 168 (lectotype designation); Brimley 1942: 30 (distr.); Townes 1944: 313 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 281 (distr., cat.); Strickland 1952: 120 (distr.); Heinrich 1962b: 712 (descr., distr., key); Heinrich 1975: 774 (distr., neallotype designation); Barron 1975: 546 (notes); Carlson 1979: 545 (cat., distr., notes); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 680 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Lectotype ♀, designated by Gahan and Rohwer (1918a, p. 168) (LUEC). Provancher (1882, p. 329) described ‘ Platylabus Rubri Capensis ’ from Québec without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Gahan and Rohwer (1918a, p. 168) designated the lectotype, addressing it as ‘Type– Female, yellow label 717. 2nd Coll. Pub. Mus., Quebec’. Subsequently, Heinrich (1962b, p. 774) incorrectly employed the term ‘Holotypus’ for the same specimen. Barron (1975, p. 546) considered valid the designation of Gahan and Rohwer (1918a, p. 168). b) Habitus, lateral view. c) Head, frontal view. d) Labels. Type locality Canada, Québec, ‘Cap-Rouge’. No type locality is given on the lectotype labels or in the original description, but the species has been described as ‘Platylabe du-CapRouge’ (= Platylabus from Cap-Rouge). Cap-Rouge is a former city in central Québec. Type specimens examined (Figure 30) Holotype: ‘[Yellow label] 717/[White label] Platylabus / rubricapensis /Prov. // [Red label] LECTOTYPE / PLATYLABUS /RUBRI CAPENSIS/ Provancher 717/ Gahan & Rohwer ’15/Barron ‘71’ (images examined). Updated distribution (Figure 31) CANADA: Alberta (Strickland 1952), Newfoundland and Labrador (Heinrich 1975), Ontario (Heinrich 1962b), Québec (Provancher 1882); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Georgia (Fattig 1950), Idaho (Heinrich 1962b), Michigan (Carlson 1979), New York (Heinrich 1962b), Oregon (Carlson 1979), South Dakota (Heinrich 1962b). Host Unknown. Male The first description of a male was provided by Heinrich (1975, p. 774), who referred to the specimen as the neallotype. Comments Townes and Townes (1951, p. 281) recorded the species for Québec, New York and North Carolina. However, as noted by Heinrich (1962b, p. 712), these last two state records refer to Platylabus rubristernatus Heinrich, 1962b (see below). The correct first record for New York must be attributed to Heinrich (1962b, p. 712), while the species has yet to be recorded for North Carolina. Yu et al. (2016) failed to list the type locality (Québec) and all the records provided by Heinrich (1962b, p. 712) and Carlson (1979, p. 545) among the distribution locality of the species. Provancher (1882) described the species under the name ‘ Rubri Capensis ’. Carlson (1979, p. 545) considered it an ‘invalid’ name because it was not binomial, and proposed the use of Platylabus rubricapensis Provancher, 1886, since the redescription contained a ‘valid binomen’. Subsequent authors kept using rubricapensis Provancher, 1882 as a valid authorship without adding any reason for rejecting Carlson’s (1979) observation (Yu and Horstmann 1997; Yu et al. 2016). We hereby provide a rationale to solve the confusion. Firstly, Carlson (1979) used the term ‘invalid’; however, the name would have been unavailable rather than invalid (see differences between Chapters 4 and 6 of ICZN (1999)). Secondly, the two words together refer to a single entity (i.e., from Red Cape (= Cap Rouge, Québec, Canada)) and are accepted to form a species-group name; they are deemed to form a single word and are united without a hyphen (rubricapensis) (ICZN 1999, Articles 11.9.5 and 32.5.2.2). Therefore, Platylabus rubricapensis Provancher 1882 is an available name., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1916-1918, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Provancher L. 1882. Faune Canadienne. Hymenopteres. Additions et corrections. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 13: 20 - 26, 74 - 84, 109 - 121, 175 - 183, 263 - 274, 309 - 317, 321 - 336.","Provancher L. 1886. Additions and corrections au Volume II de la Faune Entomologique du Canada. Traitant des Hymenopteres. Quebec (Canada): Typographie de C. Darveau; p. 475.","Cresson ET. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with a catalogue of the described species, and bibliography. Trans Am Entomol Soc, Supplementary Volume: 1 - 350.","Dalla Torre KW. 1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volumen 3. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Lipsiae: Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelman; p. VIII + 1141.","Bradley JC. 1903. The Genus Platylabus, Wesmael, with descriptions of two new species. Can Entomol. 35 (10): 275 - 283. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 35275 b- 10.","Berthoumieu V. 1904. Fam. Ichneumonidae, Subfam. Ichneumoninae. Gen Ins. 18: 1 - 87.","Gahan AB, Rohwer SA. 1918 a. Lectotypes of the species of Hymenoptera (except Apoidea) described by Abbe Provancher. Can Entomol. 50 (5): 166 - 171. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 50166 - 5.","Brimley LLD. 1942. Supplement to insects of North Carolina. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina Department of Agriculture; p. 39.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Strickland EH. 1952. Additions to the list of Ichneumonoidea from Alberta. Can Entomol. 84 (4): 118 - 122. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 84118 - 4.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Heinrich G. 1975. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). Supplement 5: ichneumoninae of the Island of Newfoundland. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 753 - 782.","Barron JR. 1975. Provancher's collections of insects, particularly those of Hymenoptera, and a study of the types of his species of Ichneumonidae. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 387 - 591.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Fattig PW. 1950. The Ichneumonidae or Parasitic Hymenoptera of Georgia. Emory Univ Mus Bul. 5: 1 - 70.","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306."]}

Platylabus rubristernatus Heinrich, 1962 (Figures 32, 33) Platylabus rubristernatus Heinrich, 1962b: 713 (descr., key); Carlson 1979: 545 (cat., distr.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 680 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Holotype ♀, original designation (EMUS); paratypes: 2♀♀ (USNM) and 1♀ (ZSM). Type locality United States of America, North Carolina, ‘Mt. Pisgah’. Type specimens examined (Figure 32) Holotype: ‘[Yellow label] Mt. Pisgah, N. C./ 5000 – 5749 ft. / 5 September 1939 /H. & M. Townes // [Blue label] HOMOTYPE/ Platylabus / rubricapensis /Prov./ H. K. Townes ’41 // [White label] Platylabus /rubristerna- i/ tus Heinr./det. Heinrich // [Yellow label] Type No./ 194 // [Red label] TYPE/ Platylabus ♀ / rubristernatus ’. Updated distribution (Figure 33) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Connecticut (Carlson 1979), Illinois (Heinrich 1962b), New York (Heinrich 1962b), North Carolina (Heinrich 1962b), Ohio (Heinrich 1962b). Host Unknown. Male Unknown. Comments The holotype of this species is one of the specimens that Townes and Townes (1951, p. 281) identified as Platylabus rubricapensis from New York. It also bears a label that reads ‘HOMOTYPE Platylabus rubricapensis ’ (Figure 32d), which identifies the hypothesis of species that Townes had in 1941., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1918-1919, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420."]}

Probolus detritus (Brullé, 1846) (Figures 4a, 34, 35) Ichneumon detritus Brullé, 1846: 302 (descr.); Cresson 1862: 208 (dist.); Berthoumieu 1904: 44 (cat.); Townes 1944: 376 (as a synonym of Ctenichneumon syphax (Cresson)); Townes and Townes 1951: 296 (as a synonym of Ctenichneumon syphax (Cresson)). Ichneumon indistinctus Provancher, 1875: 23, 75 (descr., key); Ichneumon indistinctus Berthoumieu 1904: 43 (cat.); Barron 1975: 487 (cat., syn.). Synonymised by Barron (1975: 487). Amblyteles illaetabilis Cresson, 1877: 190 (descr., key); Dalla Torre 1902: 817 (cat.); Berthoumieu 1904: 53 (cat.); Cresson 1916: 35 (cat.); Brimley 1938: 404 (dist.). Synonymised by Townes (1961: 107). Synonymised by Townes (1961: 107). Amblyteles innotabilis [sic] Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat., dist., incorrect subsequent spelling). First reviser (ICZN 1999, Article 24.2): Townes (1944: 319). Amblyteles detritus Cresson 1877: 192 (descr., dist., key, notes); Provancher 1879: 11 (descr., key); Provancher 1883: 293, 299 (descr., dist., key); Cresson 1887: 184 (cat.); Smith 1890: 22 (dist.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 809 (cat.); Johnson 1927: 144 (dist.); Cushman 1928: 923 (dist.); Johnson 1930: 98 (dist.). Amblyteles indistinctus Cresson 1877: 192 (descr., dist., key); Provancher 1879: 11 (descr., key); Provancher 1883: 293, 300 (descr., dist., key); Cresson 1887: 189 (cat.); Smith 1890: 22 (dist.); Fyles 1894: 54 (dist.); Slosson 1896 (dist.); Ashmead 1900b: 567 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 818 (cat.); Fyles 1916: 56 (dist.); Gahan and Rohwer 1917: 306 (cat., lectotype designation); Johnson 1930: 98 (dist.). Amblyteles (Amblytelesi) detritus Viereck 1917: 360 (key). Probulus illaetabilis Townes 1944: 319 (cat.); Fattig 1950: 30 (dist.); Townes and Townes 1951: 283 (cat., dist.). Probulus indistinctus Townes 1944: 319 (cat.); Fattig 1950: 30 (dist.); Townes and Townes 1951: 283 (cat., dist.); Heinrich 1962a: 520 (as a synonym of Probolus expunctus (Cresson)). Probulus detritus Townes 1961: 107; Heinrich 1962a: 519 (descr., dist., key, notes); Heinrich 1977: 121 (descr., dist., key, notes); Carlson 1979: 514 (cat.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 640 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016. Original type series Syntypes ♀ of Ichneumon detritus (MNHN); lectotype ♂ of Amblyteles illaetabilis (ANSP); lectotype ♀ of Ichneumon indistictus, designated by Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 306) (LUEC). Brullé (1846, p. 302) described Ichneumon detritus without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Townes (1944, p. 376) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Heinrich’s (1962a, p. 776) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ did not constitute a valid lectotype designation (ICZN 1999, Article 74.5). In this paper, we decided to take a more conservative approach, referring to the specimen(s) as ‘syntypes’ ICZN (1999, Article 73.2). Cresson (1877, p. 190) described Amblyteles illaetabilis without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Cresson (1916, p. 35), in his list of types, simply reported the type to be a male from Georgia and ‘In good condition’, without clarifying the number of specimens. Townes (1944, p. 319) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Carlson (1979, p. 317) stated that Cresson (1916) ‘indicated which single specimen was to be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had described a species from more than one specimen’. Hopper (1984, p. 968) reported being unable to see how it can be claimed that Cresson (1916) indicated a single specimen to be the type. This statement contradicted Cresson’s (1916, p. 1) own statement that ‘In selecting the single type the author has been governed by the present condition of the original material, and has always selected the perfect, or more nearly perfect specimen’. Furthermore, it suggests that Hopper (1984) overlooked this clear indication of Cresson’s (1916) intention of selecting a single name-bearing type (i.e. a lectotype in the modern sense). Cresson’s (1916) lectotype designation was valid and no subsequent lectotype designation has any validity (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). The fact that the selected specimen eventually could no longer be traced, as suggested by various subsequent authors (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780; Hopper 1984), could be explained by collection mismanagement and has no influence on the validity of the lectotype selection. Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can provide more insights. Heinrich’s (1962a, p. 519) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ was in errror. Provancher (1875, p. 75) described Ichneumon indistinctus from Québec without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 306) designated the lectotype, addressing it as ‘Type– Female, yellow label 185. 2nd Coll. Pub. Mus., Quebec’. Subsequently, Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) incorrectly employed the term ‘Holotypus’ for the same specimen. Barron (1975, p. 487) considered valid the designation of Gahan and Rohwer (1917, p. 75). Type locality United States of America, ‘la Caroline’ (Ichneumon detritus), Georgia (Amblyteles illaetabilis); Canada, Québec (Ichneumon indistinctus). Brullé (1846, p. 304) reported Ichneumon detritus for ‘la Caroline’. The same author, when reporting the locality for Ephialtes irritatus Fabricius, stated ‘l’Amérique du Nord (la Caroline)’. It is not clear what Brullé (1846, p. 304) was referring to with ‘la Caroline’ – possibly the region encompassed by the two Carolinas (North and South). Type specimens examined Syntypes ♀ of Ichneumon detritus: ‘[White round label] Caroline/L’herminier // [White label] Ich./ detritus Br. // [White label, red writing] TYPE // [Green label] MUSEUM PARIS // [White label] Muséum Paris/EY9952’ (images examined; available at https://science.mnhn.fr/insti tution/mnhn/collection/ey/item/ey9952) Material examined UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA: Okaloosa Co., 1 mi. N. Holt, Blackwater River For., 03 November 1978, leg. L. Stange & H.V. Weems, Jr., 1♀ (FSCA). Updated distribution (Figure 35) CANADA: Ontario (Heinrich 1962a), Québec (Provancher 1875; Fyles 1894); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Arkansas (Heinrich 1977), Delaware (Cresson 1877), Florida (new state record), Georgia (Cresson 1877; Fattig 1950), Louisiana (Heinrich 1977), Maine (Cresson 1877; Heinrich 1962a), Massachusetts (Cresson 1877; Johnson 1930), New Hampshire (Cresson 1877; Slosson 1896), New Jersey (Cresson 1877; Smith 1890), New York (Cresson 1877; Cushman 1928), North Carolina (Heinrich 1962a), Pennsylvania (Cresson 1877; Heinrich 1962a), Rhode Island (Heinrich 1962a), South Carolina (Heinrich 1962a). Host Unknown. Male The syntypes of Amblyteles illaetabilis Cresson, 1877 are males and thus their description functions as a description of the male. Moreover, Heinrich (1962a, p. 520) also provided a description of the males. Comments The taxonomic history of detritus is complicated. Cresson (1877, p. 192) synonymised Ichneumon syphax Cresson, 1864 under Amblyteles detritus (Brullé, 1846). Conversely, Townes (1944, p. 376) transferred syphax under the genus Ctenichneumon, and synonymised detritus under syphax disregarding that detritus was the senior name that should have had precedence (ICZN 1999, Article 23.1). In the same work, Townes (1944, p. 319) maintained as valid both illaetabilis and indistinctus, transferring them under the genus Probolus. This view was followed by Townes and Townes (1951, p. 283, 296). After Townes (1961, p. 107) examined the syntypes at MNHN, detritus was resurrected and transferred to the genus Probolus, treating Amblyteles illaetabilis as its synonym. Heinrich (1962a, p. 519) followed Townes’ (1961, p. 107) view, but treated indistictus as a synonym of Probulus expunctus (Cresson, 1864). It was Barron (1975, p. 487) who, based on the original type series of indistinctus, recognised indistictus as junior synonym of detritus instead of expunctus., Published as part of Dal Pos, Davide, Heilman, Victoria & Welter-Schultes, Francisco, 2022, Platylabini (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Ichneumoninae) of the south-eastern United States: new distributional data, taxonomic notes, illustrated keys, and an annotated catalogue of the genera and species, pp. 1869-1938 in Journal of Natural History 56 on pages 1921-1924, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2022.2134061, http://zenodo.org/record/7397619, {"references":["Brulle GA. 1846. Hymenopteres. Tome Quatrieme. In: Lepeletier A, editor. Histoire naturelles des insectes. Paris: Librairie Encyclopedique de Roret; p. viii + 680.","Cresson ET. 1862. A catalogue of the described species of several families of Hymenoptera inhabitating North America. Proc Entomol Soc Philadelphia. 1: 202 - 211.","Berthoumieu V. 1904. Fam. Ichneumonidae, Subfam. Ichneumoninae. Gen Ins. 18: 1 - 87.","Townes HK. 1944. A catalogue and reclassification of the Nearctic Ichneumonidae. Part I. The subfamily Ichneumoninae, Tryphoninae, Crytinae, Phaeogeninae and Lissonotinae. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 11: 1 - 925.","Townes HK, Townes M. 1951. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK, editors. Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico: Synoptic Catalog. Washington (DC): USDA; p. 1420.","Provancher L. 1875. Les Ichneumonides de Quebec. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 7: 175 - 183.","Barron JR. 1975. Provancher's collections of insects, particularly those of Hymenoptera, and a study of the types of his species of Ichneumonidae. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 102: 387 - 591.","Cresson ET. 1877. Notes on the species belonging to the subfamily Ichneumonides, found in America north of Mexico. Trans Am Entomol Soc. 6: 129 - 212. doi: 10.2307 / 25076321.","Dalla Torre KW. 1902. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volumen 3. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Lipsiae: Sumptibus Guilelmi Engelman; p. VIII + 1141.","Cresson ET. 1916. The Cresson types of Hymenoptera. Mem Am Entomol Soc. 1: 1 - 146.","Brimley LLD. 1938. The insects of North Carolina. Being a list of the insects of North Carolina and their close relatives. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina Department of Agriculture; p. 560.","Townes HK, Townes M, Gupta VK. 1961. A catalogue and reclassification of the Indo-Australian Ichneumonidae. Mem Am Entomol Ins. 1: 1 - 522.","Ashmead WH. 1900 b. Order Hymenoptera. In: Smith JB, editor. Insects of New Jersey, with notes on those of economic importance. Trenton: McCrellish & Quingley; p. 501 - 613.","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature]. 1999. International code of Zoological nomenclature. Fourth edition. London (UK): The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; p. 306.","Provancher L. 1879. Faune Canadienne. Les Insectes-Hymenopteres. Le Naturaliste Canadien. 11 (1 - 13): 33 - 43.","Provancher L. 1883. Petite faune entomologique du Canada et particulierement de la province de Quebec. Vol. II. Comprenant les Orthopteres, les Nevropteres et les Hymenopteres. Quebec: C. Darveau; p. 830. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 38552.","Cresson ET. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with a catalogue of the described species, and bibliography. Trans Am Entomol Soc, Supplementary Volume: 1 - 350.","Smith JB. 1890. Catalogue of the insects found in New Jersey. Trenton (NJ): The John L. Murphy Publishing Company; p. 486. doi: 10.5962 / bhl. title. 7907.","Johnson CW. 1927. The insect fauna with reference to the flora and other biological features. Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute of Anatamoy and Biology; p. 247.","Cushman RA. 1928. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Leonard MD, editor. A list of the insects of New York. New York (NY): Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station; p. 920 - 960.","Johnson CW. 1930. A list of the insect fauna of Nantucket, Massachusetss, with a list of the spiders by James H. Emerton. Publ Nantucket Maria Mitchell Assoc. 3 (2): 1 - 175.","Fyles TW. 1894. Food, feeder, and fed. Annu Rep Entomol Soc Ontario. 25: 49 - 56.","Slosson AT. 1896. Additional list of insect taken in alpine region of Mt. Washington. Entomol News. 7: 262 - 265.","Fyles TW. 1916. Observataion upon some of the predaceous and parasitic Hymenoptera. Annu Rep Entomol Soc Ontario. 46: 52 - 60.","Gahan AD, Rohwer SA. 1917. Lectotypes of the species of Hymenoptera (except Apoidea) described by Abbe Provancher. Can Entomol. 49 (9): 298 - 308. doi: 10.4039 / Ent 49298 - 9.","Viereck HL. 1917. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Part III. The Hymenoptera, or wasp-like insects of Connecticut. Ichneumonoidea. Hartford (CT): State of Connecticut; p. 824.","Fattig PW. 1950. The Ichneumonidae or Parasitic Hymenoptera of Georgia. Emory Univ Mus Bul. 5: 1 - 70.","Heinrich G. 1962 a. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part V. Synopsis of the Ichneumonini: Genera Protopelmus, Patrocloides, Probolus, Stenichneumon, Aoplus, Limonethe, Hybophorellus, Rubicundiella, Melanichneumon, Stenobarichneumon, Platylabops, Hoplismenus, Hemihoplis, Trogomorpha. Can Entomol. S 26: 507 - 672.","Heinrich G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and neighboring states (Hymenoptera: lchneumonidae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropods Florida Neighboring Land Areas, Florida Dept Agric Consum Serv. 9: 1 - 350.","Carlson RW. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR, Burks BD, editors. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Vol 1. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 315 - 741.","Yu DSK, Horstmann K. 1997. A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Mem Am Entomol Ins. 58: 1 - 1558.","Yu D, Van Achterberg C, Horstmann K. 2016. Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. Nepean (Canada).","Hopper HP. 1984. On the question of the selector of the lectotypes of the species of Ichneumonidae describe by Ezra Townsend Cresson. Proc Entomol Soc Wash. 86: 968.","Heinrich G. 1962 b. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumoninae Stenopneusticae with particular reference to the Northeastern Region (Hymenoptera). Part VI. Synopsis of the lchneumonini (Genus Plagiotrypes), Acanthojoppini, Listrodromini and Platylabini. Can Entomol. S 27: 677 - 802. doi: 10. 4039 / entm 9427 fv.","Cresson ET. 1864. Descriptions of North American Hymenoptera in the collection of the entomological society of Philadelphia. Proc Entomol Soc Philadelphia. 3: 257 - 321."]}