Remove as burn-in. A 10 burn-in was removed from both tree files which were then combined and resampled at 10 . A Maximum Clade Credibility Tree (MCCT) was made from the combined resampled tree file in TreeAnotator v.1.7.5 (Rambaut and Drummond 2013). The MCCT only shows posterior probability values over 0.50 (Fig. 1). When discussing the support to particular clades (species-groups), those values are mentioned within the text in the format: “PP: 0.95” (i.e., posterior probability of 0.95). While this tree is obviously better than a simple NJ tree for displaying presumed phylogenetic relationships, we stress that the purpose of this paper is alpha taxonomy and not phylogeny, and any phylogenetic analyses are highly preliminary until hundreds more of the ACG and Mesoamerican species of Apanteles can be included. A neighbor-joining (Saitou and Nei 1987) tree was also constructed in Geneious Pro 6.1 (Drummond et al. 2011) using the TN93 model (Tamura and Nei 1993) (Fig. 2).Results Definition of the genus Apanteles sensu stricto The limits of Apanteles and other AZD0865 site genera of Microgastrinae have lately been the subject of debate (e.g., van Achterberg 2003), and some recent references use a rather broad generic concept, e.g., Fauna Europaea (van Achterberg 2012), and Taxapad (Yu et al. 2012). We follow here the generic concepts proposed by Mason (1981), which have been widely adopted in parts of Europe (Papp 1988, Broad et al. 2012), Australia (Austin and Dangerfield 1992), China (Chen and Song 2004), and the New World (Whitfield 1995 and 1997, Fern dez-Triana 2010, Fern dez-Triana et al. 2013). For the purpose of this review, we consider the genera Choeras, Dolichogenidea, Exoryza, Iconella, and Illidops to be valid and not synonyms or subgenera of Apanteles sensu stricto. We provide below definitions of all of these genera, and our reasons for keeping them separate from Apanteles sensu stricto. Choeras was defined by Mason (1981) to include species with a median carina on the propodeum (the Greek name of the genus precisely refers to that character). In addition, many species, although not all, have a more or less complete areolet (i.e. second submarginal cell) on the fore wing. The genus is far from being resolved, as Mason himself stated in the original description. Based on extensive material worldwide that we have been able to study, some species groups (e.g. the psarae group, as defined by Nixon (1965) and followed by Mason (1981), and many undescribed species) currently thought to be Choeras may be better placed in a different (new) genus; this order CBR-5884 applies especially to most of the species from the Oriental and Australasian regions. However, all of those species have a more or less complete median carina on the propodeum, and never have any indication of a propodeal areola (in contrast to Apanteles sensu stricto).Jose L. Fernandez-Triana et al. / ZooKeys 383: 1?65 (2014)DNA barcoding tends to clearly cluster the species of both genera separately (e.g. Smith et al. 2013). Dolichogenidea, described by Viereck (1911), is perhaps the closest genus to Apanteles sensu stricto, and also the most controversial and difficult to separate from Apanteles. Mason (1981: 53?4) devoted several pages to discussing the main defining characters and the difficulties in separating both genera; he concluded, rather hopelessly, that in practice the decision was still somewhat arbitrary (because of the apparent continuum of variation in character). We have examin.Remove as burn-in. A 10 burn-in was removed from both tree files which were then combined and resampled at 10 . A Maximum Clade Credibility Tree (MCCT) was made from the combined resampled tree file in TreeAnotator v.1.7.5 (Rambaut and Drummond 2013). The MCCT only shows posterior probability values over 0.50 (Fig. 1). When discussing the support to particular clades (species-groups), those values are mentioned within the text in the format: “PP: 0.95” (i.e., posterior probability of 0.95). While this tree is obviously better than a simple NJ tree for displaying presumed phylogenetic relationships, we stress that the purpose of this paper is alpha taxonomy and not phylogeny, and any phylogenetic analyses are highly preliminary until hundreds more of the ACG and Mesoamerican species of Apanteles can be included. A neighbor-joining (Saitou and Nei 1987) tree was also constructed in Geneious Pro 6.1 (Drummond et al. 2011) using the TN93 model (Tamura and Nei 1993) (Fig. 2).Results Definition of the genus Apanteles sensu stricto The limits of Apanteles and other genera of Microgastrinae have lately been the subject of debate (e.g., van Achterberg 2003), and some recent references use a rather broad generic concept, e.g., Fauna Europaea (van Achterberg 2012), and Taxapad (Yu et al. 2012). We follow here the generic concepts proposed by Mason (1981), which have been widely adopted in parts of Europe (Papp 1988, Broad et al. 2012), Australia (Austin and Dangerfield 1992), China (Chen and Song 2004), and the New World (Whitfield 1995 and 1997, Fern dez-Triana 2010, Fern dez-Triana et al. 2013). For the purpose of this review, we consider the genera Choeras, Dolichogenidea, Exoryza, Iconella, and Illidops to be valid and not synonyms or subgenera of Apanteles sensu stricto. We provide below definitions of all of these genera, and our reasons for keeping them separate from Apanteles sensu stricto. Choeras was defined by Mason (1981) to include species with a median carina on the propodeum (the Greek name of the genus precisely refers to that character). In addition, many species, although not all, have a more or less complete areolet (i.e. second submarginal cell) on the fore wing. The genus is far from being resolved, as Mason himself stated in the original description. Based on extensive material worldwide that we have been able to study, some species groups (e.g. the psarae group, as defined by Nixon (1965) and followed by Mason (1981), and many undescribed species) currently thought to be Choeras may be better placed in a different (new) genus; this applies especially to most of the species from the Oriental and Australasian regions. However, all of those species have a more or less complete median carina on the propodeum, and never have any indication of a propodeal areola (in contrast to Apanteles sensu stricto).Jose L. Fernandez-Triana et al. / ZooKeys 383: 1?65 (2014)DNA barcoding tends to clearly cluster the species of both genera separately (e.g. Smith et al. 2013). Dolichogenidea, described by Viereck (1911), is perhaps the closest genus to Apanteles sensu stricto, and also the most controversial and difficult to separate from Apanteles. Mason (1981: 53?4) devoted several pages to discussing the main defining characters and the difficulties in separating both genera; he concluded, rather hopelessly, that in practice the decision was still somewhat arbitrary (because of the apparent continuum of variation in character). We have examin.