Diverse scelionid wasps in Early Cretaceous amber from Spain (Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea)

Archaeoteleia Masner in the Cretaceous and a new species of Proteroscelio Brues (Hymenoptera, Platygastroidea)

“…Their diagnosis stated that Proterosceliopsis has 6 visible tergites and a short, wide ovipositor. Based on the drawing and photograph of Proterosceliopsis masneri provided by Ortega-Blanco et al (2014) (Figures 1, 6A) we offer an alternative interpretation, that the metasoma has 6 externally visible tergites and the apex is the partially extruded fusion of T7+8, as is found in scelionines with a Scelio-type ovipositor. In lieu of P. nexus, Proterosceliopsis can be differentiated from Proteroscelio by the fore wing not extending to the apex of the metasoma, a strongly transverse mesoscutellum and the presence of a horn on T1.…”

“…Proteroscelio nexus has T2 as the longest tergite (Figure 22), rendering this character unusable. The use of claval formula by Ortega-Blanco et al (2014) for generic level diagnosis is potentially problematic because these authors did not clarify their criterion for differentiating between clavomeres and the funicle. In Proteroscelio antennalis and P. gravatus the size difference is sufficiently extreme that differentiating between clavomere and non-clavomere is straightforward.…”

Fossil Platygastroidea in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

“…We think it is noteworthy that more than half of the fossil platygastroid genera were described by authors who have not published on the extant fauna of Platygastroidea (Meunier 1917, Statz 1938, Schlüter 1978, Carpenter 1992, Nel and Azar 2005, Nel and Prokop 2005, Poinar and Buckley 2012, Ortega-Blanco et al 2014. Such disjunction does not preclude these works from being useful, but a lack of experience with morphological diversity and character systems within the group is at times evident.…”

“…Such disjunction does not preclude these works from being useful, but a lack of experience with morphological diversity and character systems within the group is at times evident. We are particularly critical of Ortega-Blanco et al (2014) who erected 12 new genera, many on the basis of characters that commonly vary within extant genera (notaulus, number of clavomeres, presence of an occipital carina, metasoma length). Perhaps most disappointing in Ortega-Blanco et al (2014) is the lack of discussion or examination of previously described fossil taxa.…”

“…We are particularly critical of Ortega-Blanco et al (2014) who erected 12 new genera, many on the basis of characters that commonly vary within extant genera (notaulus, number of clavomeres, presence of an occipital carina, metasoma length). Perhaps most disappointing in Ortega-Blanco et al (2014) is the lack of discussion or examination of previously described fossil taxa. Such purely additive taxonomy, without revision of pre-existing concepts, rapidly leads to a foggy classification, increasing the burden on future taxonomists.…”