Metaphycus

California Metaphycus
May 2018
Return to Introduction
 

1 Body with some bright scarlet red on head, antenna and/or body ……………………… 2
1’ Body/head color never scarlet red (occasionally orange) ……….……………………. 10

2(1) Scape linear, not expanded below …………………….……..………..….………… 3
2’ Scape expanded below …………………..…………………………..………………… 4

3(2) Body all red …………………………..…………………………………….. howardi
3’ Head with frons and area posterior to eyes white, notum dark ……….…………… sp17

4(2) Legs uniformly orange, without dark bands or spots ….……..………… argyrocomus
4’ Legs banded or with dark spots ……………………..…………………….….………. 5

5(4) Club entirely white ………………………………………………………….……….6
5’ Club dark ……………………………………………………………………………… 7

6(5) Apical ventral portion of scape black; ventral portion of scape orange or extremely narrow white band; notum with relatively sparse, fine setae; thorax & abdomen dorsally scarlet; anterior 0.25-0.33 of mesopleuron bright orange, remainder yellowish (sometimes with darker highlights) ………..…………..……… matteolus
6’ Apical ventral portion of scape with no black marking; ventral portion of scape with noticeable white band (width up to 1/8 width of that of scape medially); thorax and abdomen basally black dorsally; mesopleuron dorsal-anteriorly white,
brownish yellow over most of surface …………………………………..….…… sp13

7(5) Gena bright orange with oblique white stripe next to eye …………………… calvus
7’ Gena otherwise ………………………………………………………………………. 8

8(7) Mesonotum dark brown or black medially, lighter laterally …………………… sp12
8’ Mesonotum scarlet red ………………….…………………………………..……..…. 9

9(8) Scape length 2.0x width; interior aspect of scape orange-red centrally ..… flammeus
9’Scape length 2.5x width; interior aspect of scape with no orange color …….……. sp22

10(1) Club entirely white …………………………………………………..…………… 11
10’ Club at least partially darkened/colored ……………………………..………..…… 16

11(10) Wing with distad dark stripe crossing entire wing from marginal vein, all funicle
segments white, metasoma light basally, dark apically …………………….……… 12
11’ Wing without transverse stripe, some funicle segments dark, metasoma not so
colored …………………………………………….………………….………….… 13

12(11) Scape and pedicle completely dark; head distinctly tri-banded: lower face dark, upper face white, vertex light yellow ………..……..……………..………..……… sp5
12’ Scape apically and pedicle white; lower face generally lighter than upper face and vertex ……………………………………………………………………………… sp9

13(11) Ovipositor exerted about 0.5x metasoma length …………..……..…………. sp 28
13’ Ovipositor at most shortly exerted ……………………..…………..………………. 14

14(13) Forewings distinctly bicolorous ……………………………………..……. clauseni
14’ Wings hyaline ………………………………………………….…….…………..… 15

15(14) Dorsum of mesosoma almost pure dark yellow; F1-F6 dark ………… physokermis
15’ Dorsum of darker, especially centrally; at least F4-F6 light ……………….………. sp10

16(10) Scape widened, almost quadangular (widest apically and only slightly narrower medially; hind femora with intricate yellow and black pattern ……..……..….…. sp11
16’ Scape either not widened, or expanded and widest medially, or expanded and widest apically but immediately markedly narrowing; hind femora without intricate pattern ……………..……………………………………………………………..…………. 17

17(16) Pedicle no longer than F1+F2, one or more funicle segments elongate …….…. 18
17’ Pedicle longer than F1+F2, all funicle segments transverse or quadrate .……..…… 21

18(17) Head least partially lightened ………………………………………………….. 19
18’ Head entirely dark ……………………………………………………………….… 20

19(18) Scape elongate, length about 6x width ….…………….………………… armitagei
19’ Scape widened, length about 2x width ……………..……………………… kermicola

20(18) Funicle segments unicolorous fuscous ……………..……………………. trimblei
20’ Funicle segments unicolorous yellow …………………………..………….….… sp30

21(17) Scape elongate, length distinctly longer than 3x width ………………………… 22
21’ Scape expanded triangularly below, length equal to or less than 3x width ………… 40

22(21) Mesosoma notum distinctly bicolored- pronotum, scutum anteriorly and scutellum
dark, axillae and most of scutum yellow ………………..………………………… sp2
22’ Mesosoma not so colored ……………………………….……………………….… 23

23(22) Mesonotum dark brown/black ……………………………………………….… 24
23’ Mesonotum yellow or orange ………………………………………………..……. 29

24(23) Funicle and club uniformly yellow …………………………………..……… sp27
24’ At least some funicle or club segments darkened …………………………………. 25

25(24) Vertex and face mostly dark, except for any yellow suture lines …..…..……… 26
25’ Vertex and face mostly orange or yellow ………..…………………….………….. 28

26(25) Face without any yellow suture lines ……………………………….…..…… sp29
26’ Face with yellow suture lines ……………………………………..……………….. 27

27(26) Scutellum reticulate; legs all yellow (occasionally dark smudges on hind femur); ovipositor protruding only slightly ………………………………………………. sp25
27’ Scutellum longitudinally reticulate; most specimens with greater degree of maculation on legs; ovipositor distinctly protruding ………………….……..….. sp26

28(25) Metasoma completely light, gena immaculate ………………………………..sp16
28’ Metasoma dark posteriorly, gena marked below eye …….……………………… sp19

29(23) Tibia banded with dark rings …………………………………………………… 30
29’ Tibia immaculate …………………………………………………………………… 34

30(29) Terga of metasoma brown/black …………………………………………..……. 31
30’ Terga of metasoma yellow/light …………………………………………………… 32

31(30) F4-F5 quadrate, club all dark, F4 light …………..……………………… eriococci
31’ F4-F5 transverse, club light apically, F4 at least partially dark ……..………. inviscus

32(30) Gena with faint dark mark ……………………………………………….….. sp24
32’Gena immaculate …………………………………………………..………………. 33

33(32) Frontovertex width 0.25x head width; interior aspect of scape light except for small maculation at distal end of ventral edge …………………………………… sp14
33’ Frontovertex width 0.33x head width; interior aspect of scape yellow with dark oblique stripe or mark crossing width of scape………..…..…………………….. sp15

34(29) Forewing length= 3x width, marginal vein length about 3x width (funicle
segments unicolorous, light) ……………………………………………………….. sp7
34’ Forewing wider, marginal vein shorter ………………………………………..……. 35

35(34) Marginal vein about 2x width ……..………………………………..…….. eruptor
35’ Marginal vein punctiform ……………………………………………………..…… 36

36(35) Ocelli in equilateral triangle, or very nearly ……………………….…….. psyllidis
36’ Ocelli forming distinctly acute triangle …………………………………………….. 37

37(36) Scape completely light ……………………………………………..…..……. sp21
37’ Scape with dark markings ………………………………………………………….. 38

38(37) Collar of pronotum with continuous dark transverse line ……….….… stramineus
38’ Collar of pronotum with isolated dark mark ………………………………….……. 39

39(38) Scape with dark spot on ventral side near apex ………….………………… alberti
39’ Scape with dark spot on dorsal side near apex ………………….…………… luteolus

40(21) Forewing distinctly infuscate: either with medial darkened area, or basal half of
wing darkened, contrasting with lighter apical area ……………..….…..…………. 41
40’ Forewing hyaline, or uniformly weakly infuscate ………………….…..………….. 47

41(40) Forewing centrally darkened, lighter both basally and apically ….….…………. 42
41’ Entire basal area of forewing darkened ….………….……………………………… 45

42(41) Mesosomal notum darkened ………………….………..…………..………..….. 43
42’ Mesosomal notum orange ………………………..………….………………………44

43(42) Scape yellow with dark markings, legs banded ………………………………. sp4
43’ Scape all yellow/orange, legs immaculate ……………………………..………. sp18

44(42) Gena immaculate ………………………………………………………………. sp3
44’ Gena darkened below eye ……………..……………………………………… lecanii

45(41) F1-F4 transverse, obviously shorter & narrower than F5-F6 …………. fuscipennis
45’ F1-F4 transverse or quadrate, not markedly smaller than F5-F6 ………………….. 46

46(45) F1-F4 dark, F5-F6 white ……..………………………………………… fumipennis
46’ F1 dark, F2-F6 white ……………………………………………………… funicularis

47(40) Gena slightly to distinctly darkened below eye …..……………………………. 48
47’ Gena completely light, with no darkening ……..………………………………….. 54

48(47) Mesonotum orange or orange-brown …………………………………………… 49
48’ Mesonotum black or dark brown ………….……………….………………….…… 51

49(48) Inner aspect of scape all back, except straight dorsal yellow line, somewhat
expanded ventrally at apex ………..…………………………………….………… sp1
49’ Inner aspect of scape with maculation forming semicircular shape dorsally ……… 50

50(49) Scape length= 2.5x width ………………………………….… californicus/stanleyi
50’ Scape length= 3.0x width …………………………………………………. lounsburyi

51(48) Inner aspect of scape yellow dorsally, completely dark ventrally……………… 52
51’ Inner aspect of scape yellow at base, apex and dorsally ………..…………….….… 53

52(51) Viewed anteriorly, head with alternating dark/light bands- vertex light with
longitudinal dark line …………………………………………….……………….. sp6
52’ Gena, frons, vertex anteriorly almost completely yellow/white ……..……………. sp8

53(51) Gena with pale brownish spot, F4 dark, F6 wider than long, abdomen dorsum
darkened medially, wings hyaline ……………………………..……..…… coquilletti
53’ Gena with dark brown spot, F4 white, F6 quadrate, abdomen completely yellow, wings at certain angle appearing infuscate basally ………….…………………… sp20

54(47) Frontovertex width about 0.2x head width …………………..……… angustifrons
54’ Frontovertex width 0.25-4.5x head width ………………………………………….. 55

55(54) Notauli complete, extending to posterior of mesoscutum ……….………. zebratus
55’ Notauli incomplete, extending no more than ½ way across mesoscutum………….. 56

56(55) Legs immaculate, at most mid tibia with faint dark ring at base ………… helvolus
56’ Mid and hind tibiae each with 2 dark rings …………………..……………………. 57

57(56) Inner aspect of scape with maculation in smooth semicircle; dorsum of metasoma at least partially light brown/yellow ………………………………………………. sp23
57’ Inner aspect of scape with maculation not reaching proximal ventral surface, shape resembling a hatchet; dorsum of metasoma black or very dark brown …………….. 58

58(57) Club upper and lower surfaces parallel, apical sensory area truncate, about 4/5
width of club, ovipositor shorter than hind tibia ………………..…………… anneckei
58’ Club decidedly widest medially, apical sensory area slightly oblique, about ½ width
of club, ovipositor longer than hind tibia ……………………..…………….…. hageni

Sp. 1 Marin (RLZC)
Sp. 2 San Bernardino (LACM), Lassen, San Luis Obispo (RLZC)
Sp. 3 Tuolumne (UCFC)
Sp. 4 San Diego (CSCA), Santa Barbara (SBNHM)
Sp. 5 Contra Costa, Kern, Marin (RLZC)
Sp. 6 Riverside (UCRC)
Sp. 7 Modoc (RLZC)
Sp. 8 Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara (RLZC)
Sp. 9 Stanislaus (UCFC)
Sp. 10 Alameda, Contra Costa (RLZC)
Sp. 11 Plumas (RLZC), San Bernardino (RLZC, UCRC), Riverside (UCDC)
Sp. 12 Monterey (RLZC)
Sp. 13 Kern, San Luis Obispo (RLZC)
Sp. 14 Stanislaus (UCFC)
Sp. 15 Marin, Stanislaus (RLZC)
Sp. 16 Imperial (UCDC)
Sp. 17 Riverside, San Bernardino (UCRC)
Sp. 18 Imperial (UCDC)
Sp. 19 Contra Costa, Plumas (RLZC)
Sp. 20 Imperial (UCDC), San Luis Obispo (RLZC)
Sp. 21 Imperial, Santa Barbara (UCDC)
Sp. 22 Santa Barbara (UCDC)
Sp. 23 Orange (CSCA), Contra Costa (EMEC & RLZC), San Bernardino (RLZC), Solano (UCDC), Stanislaus, Tuolumne (UCFC); specimens from southern California (Orange & San Bernardino County) have the mesosoma dorsally yellow, while the other specimens have the mesosoma dorsally orange with darker markings
Sp. 24 Marin (RLZC)
Sp. 25 Marin, Nevada (RLZC)
Sp. 26 Inyo, Riverside, San Bernardino (UCRC), Santa Clara (CAS), Amador, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Los Angeles, San Benito, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Solano, Stanislaus (RLZC): most specimens have legs with dark maculations, but some specimens have all yellow legs – the gaster of these specimens are yellow basally
Sp. 27 Marin (RLZC)
Sp. 28 Alameda (EMEC)
Sp. 29 Riverside (UCRC)
Sp. 30 Santa Barbara (UCDC)

Described Nearctic species and distribution
(including genus originally described in, if other than Metaphycus)
alberti (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (CA)
angustifrons Compere, 1957: Introduced to USA (CA, FL, TX)
anneckei Guerrieri & Noyes, 2000: Introduced to USA (CA)
annulipes (Ashmead, 1882): (Aphycus) CAN (ON); USA (FL)
argyrocomus (Compere, 1947): (Erythraphycus) USA (CA)
armitagei (Compere, 1926): (Aenasioidea) USA (CA)
beshearae (Gordh & Trjapitzin, 1981): (Erythraphycus) USA (FL, GA)
californicus (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (CA, MD, NC, PE)
calvus (Compere, 1947): (Erythraphycus) USA (CA)
ceroplastis (Howard, 1885): (Aphycus) USA (FL, NM)
clauseni (Timberlake, 1918): (Pseudococcobius) USA (CA, FL)
cockerelli (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (NM)
coquilletti (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (CA, UT)
eriococci (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) USA (CA, FL, TX, UT)
eruptor (Howard, 1881): (Aphycus) USA (CA, FL, LA, PE, VA)
farfani Myartseva, 2003: MEX (SLP)
flammeus Compere, 1947: USA: CA)
flavus (Howard, 1881): MEX (MR); USA (FL, MD, NY, OH, TX)
fumipennis (Timberlake, 1918): (Pseudococcobius) USA (AZ, CA)
funicularis Annecke, 1965: Introduced to USA (CA)
fuscipennis (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (CA)
hageni Daane & Caltagirone, 1999: Introduced to USA (CA)
helvolus (Compere, 1926): (Aphycus) Introduced to MEX (BC); USA (CA)
howardi (Cockerell, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (CA, NM)
immaculatus (Howard, 1894): (Aphycus) USA (CA)
insidiosus (Mercet, 1921): USA (FL)
inviscus Compere, 1940: Introduced to USA (CA)
johnsoni (Howard, 1898): CAN (ON, PQ); USA (IL, NC, PE, VA)
kermicola (Timberlake, 1916): (Aenasioidea) USA (CA, UT)
kincaidi Timberlake, 1929: CAN (BC); USA (WA)
kingi (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) USA (MA, OH)
latiscapus (Girault, 1911): (Aenasioidea) USA (IL)
lecanii (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (CA)
lounsburyi (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) Introduced to MEX (DF, PU, SLP); USA (CA, MA)
luteolus (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) MEX (CU, DF, SN); USA (CA, TX)
maculipennis (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) USA (MA)
maculipes (Howard, 1885): (Aphycus) CAN (ON); USA (IL, MA, OH, SC, TX)
matteolus (Compere, 1947): (Erythraphycus) USA (CA)
memphis Noyes, 2004: MEX (PU)
oregonensis (Howard, 1898): (Aphycus) USA (OR)
physokermis (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) USA (CA)
psyllidis Compere, 1943: USA (CA, NE)
pulchellus (Howard, 1898): (Aenasioidea) CAN (ON); USA (NJ, NY, OK)
pulvinariae (Howard, 1881): (Aphycus) CAN (ON); USA (FL, GA, IA, KS, MA, MN, MS, MT, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PE, SC, TX, UT, VA)
rileyi (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) CAN (ON); USA (CN, MO, NY, OH, TX)
schwarzi (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) USA (AZ)
similis (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) USA (TX)
stanleyi Compere, 1940: Introduced to CAN (BC); MEX (SLP); USA (CA, TX)
stomachosus (Girault, 1909): (Aphycus) USA (IL, MD, MA, OH, PE, VA)
stramineus Compere, 1940: Introduced to USA (CA)
subfasciatus (Timberlake, 1916): (Aphycus) USA (KS)
trimblei (Dozier, 1936): (Aenasioidea) USA (CA, PE)
troas Noyes, 2004: MEX (GT)
zebratus (Mercet, 1917): (Aphycus) Introduced to USA (CA)

Remarks
Accurate identification of some species relies upon determining the number of maxillary and labial palpal segments, which usually requires slide-mounted specimens. My studies were largely restricted to point-mounted specimens and I was unable to take into consideration these valuable characters. Metaphycus immaculatus is known only from males, and hence is not represented in the key. Metaphycus matteolus was described only from the male, but I have several female specimens that appear to be conspecific. A number of Metaphycus species were imported into California during various biological control programs, but apparently failed to establish, including: M. chermis (Fonscolombe 1832), M. citrinus Compere 1957, M. dispar (Mercet 1925), M. flavus (Howard 1881), M. gilvus Compere 1957, M. lichtensiae (Howard [in Howard & Ashmead] 1896), M. maculipennis (Timberlake 1916), M. melanostomatus (Timberlake 1916) and M. orientalis (Compere 1924) (Zuparko 2015). M. insidiosus (Mercet 1921) was imported from France in 1939 and again in 1955, and may have been one of the suite of imported agents reported released in small numbers in San Jose, none of which established (although it has been established in Florida). This species apparently is morphologically indistinguishable from M. californicus, so determining its true status in California would probably require molecular analysis. Additionally, M. californicus appears to be morphologically identical with M. stanleyi: Compere & Annecke (1961) suggest they are differentiated only by their hosts – in California specimens reared from Saissetia oleae, S. hemisphaerica, Coccus hesperidium or C. pseudomagnoliarum should be referred to M. stanleyi, and those from Eulecanium sp., Mesolecanium nigrofasciatum, Parthenolecanium corni or P. pruinosum to M. californicus. Furthermore, Timberlake (1916) opined that M. oregonensis may well be the male of M. californicus, and M. pulvinariae may be another synonym of this species as well (Compere & Annecke, 1961). The latter authors note that M. stanleyi is very close to M. inviscus, but are most readily distinguished by the males. In my key, these two are separated by a minute difference in the dimensions of the scape (length about 2.5x width for M. stanleyi, and slightly over 3.0x width for M. inviscus), but admittedly this may be very difficult to differentiate. In their report of Mexican parasitoids attacking Aleyrodidae, Myartseva et al (2013) reported Metaphycus omega Noyes was a parasitoid of Aleurodicus cocois and A. maritimus, citing a paper by Evans (2008). Based on this record, Noyes (2017) reported M. omega from Mexico. However, M. omega was not mentioned by name in Evans’ paper – under natural enemies of Aleurodicus cocois and A. maritimus, he listed only “Metaphycus sp.” and did not specifically state that either of them were from Mexico. Additionally, M. omega was not included in the Mexican fauna by either Myartseva & Ruiz-Cancino (2004), or Trjapitzin et al (2008), while Myartseva (2006), noted this species only from Central America, South America and Trinidad. Specimens in the USNM have the following characteristics: M. annulipes keys to M. zebratus; specimens of M. beshearae does not key out as they are brachypterus and the antenna are almost all white; M. ceroplastes keys to species 2, but the scutum of the latter is all yellow (or with a hint of a dark speck), but darker in the former; M. flavus keys to couplet 19, but the scape is intermediate between the two choices there; the holotype of M. johnsoni is missing, but other specimens of this species key to M. fuscipennis; M. kincaidi keys to sp. 8, but has a different scape color pattern; M. kingi keys to M. helvolus; M. maculipes keys to sp. 3, but the former has the inner aspect of the scape all dark except for dorsally at the distal ¼ and the base of the metasoma is dark, while the latter has the inner aspect of the scape light ventrally and dark dorsally distally, with the base of the metasoma white; M. oregonensis keys to M. stramineus; M. pulchellus keys to couplet 15, but the dorsum color matches M. physokermis while the antenna color is closer to sp. 10; the holotype of M. pulvineriae has only the mesosoma present; M. rileyi keys to the couplets including M. fuscipennis, M. schwarzi and M. similis, but matches none of those; M. subfasciatus keys to couplet 50 or M. zebratus.

References

Annecke, D.P. 1965. Records and descriptions of African Encyrtidae – 3 (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa 28:217-29.

Ashmead, W.H. 1882. On the Chalcididae of Florida (Paper No. 2). Canadian Entomologist 14: 35-37.

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1898. A bright red parasite of Coccidae. Canadian Entomologist 30: 276.

Compere, H. 1924. A preliminary report on the parasitic enemies of the citricola scale [Coccus pseudomagnoliarum (Kuwana)] with descriptions of two new chalcicoid parasites. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 23: 113-122.

Compere, H. 1926. Descriptions of new coccid-inhabiting chalcidoid parasites (Hymenoptera). University of California Publications in Entomology 4: 1-31.

Compere, H. 1940. The African species of Metaphycus, Mercet. Bulletin of Entomological Research 31: 7-33.

Compere, H. 1943. A new species of Metaphycus parasitic on psyllids. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 19: 71-73.

Compere, H. 1947. A report on a collection of Encyrtidae with descriptions of new genera and species. University of California Publications in Entomology 8: 1-24.

Compere, H. 1957. Descriptions of species of Metaphycus recently introduced into California and some corrections. Bollettino del Laboratoria di Entomologia Agraria Filippo Silvestri’, Portici 15: 221-230.

Compere, H. & D.P. Annecke. 1961. Descriptions of parasitic Hymenoptera and comments (Hymenopt.: Aphelinidae, Encyrtidae, Eulophidae). Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa 24: 17-71.

Daane, K.M. & L.E. Caltagirone. 1999. A new species of Metaphycus (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) parasitic on Saissetia oleae (Olivier) (Homoptera: Coccidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 75: 13-17.

Dozier, H.L. 1936. Descriptions of two new encyrtid parasites of non-diaspine scales. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 37: 183-185.

Evans, G.A. 2008. The whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) of the world and their host plants and natural enemies. Computer version 2008-09-23. 703 pp. (http://entomofaune.qc.ca/entomofaune/aleurodes/references/Evans_2008_whiteflies_of_the_world.pdf)

Fonscolombe, E.L.J.H. Boyer de. 1832. Monographia chalciditum galloprovinciae circa aquas degentum. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie) 26: 273-307.

Girault, A.A. 1909. The chalcidoid parasites of the coccid Eulecanium nigrofasciatum (Pergande), with descriptions of three new North American species of the subfamilies Encyrtinae and Aphelininae from Illinois. Psyche 16: 75-86.

Girault, A.A. 1911. The chalcidoid parasites of the coccid Kermes pubescens Bogue, with descriptions of two new genera and three new species of Encyrtidae from Illinois. Canadian Entomologist 43: 168-178.

Gordh, G. & V.A. Trjapitzin. 1981. Taxonomic studies of the Encyrtidae with the descriptions of new species and a new genus. University of California Publications in Entomology 93: 55 pp.

Guerrieri, E. & J.S. Noyes. 2000. Revision of European species of genus Metaphycus Mercet (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Encyrtidae), parasitoids of scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Systematic Entomology 25: 147-222.

Howard, L.O. 1881. (In Comstock, J.H. Report of the entomologist for 1880). Report of the parasites of Coccidae in the collections of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Part III. Report. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington (Entomology) 1880: 350-372.

Howard, L.O. 1885. Descriptions of North American Chalcididae from the collection of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and of Dr. C.V. Riley, with biological notes. [First paper]. Bulletin of United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology 5: 1-47.

Howard, L.O. 1894. The hymenopterous parasites of the California red scale. Insect Life 6: 227-236.

Howard, L.O. 1898. On some new parasitic insects of the subfamily Encyrtinae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 21: 231-248.

Howard, L.O. & Ashmead, W.H. 1896. On some reared hymenopterous insects from Ceylon. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 18: 633-648.

Mercet, R.G. 1917. Encirtinos de España. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural 17: 538-544.

Mercet, R.G. 1921. Fauna Ibérica. Himenópteros Fam. Encírtidos. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain: 732 pp.

Mercet, R.G. 1925. El género Aphycus y sus afines. Eos. Revista Española di Entomologia. Madrid 1: 7-31.

Myartseva, S.N. 2003. Six new species of the genus Metaphycus Mercet from Mexico (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Zoosystematica Rossica 12: 125-134.

Myartseva, S.N., E. Ruiz-Cancino, J.M. Coronado-Blanco & J. Cambero-Campos. 2013. Parasitoides de Aleurodicus spp. (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) en Mexico, con la descripción de una nueva especie de Encarsia (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Acta Zoologica Mexicana (n.s.) 29: 641-653.

Myartseva, S.N. & E. Ruiz-Cancino. 2004. Synopsis of the genus Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 of Mexico (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) with description of new species. Russian Entomological Journal 13: 269-276.

Noyes, J.S. 2004. Encyrtidae of Costa Rica (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), 2. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 73: 459 pp.

Noyes, J.S. 2017. Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web electronic publication. http://.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids

Timberlake, P.H. 1916. Revision of the parasitic Hymenopterous insects of the genus Aphycus Mayr, with notice of some related genera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 50: 561-640.

Timberlake, P.H. 1918. New genera and species of Encyrtidae from California parasitic in mealybugs (Hymenoptera). University of California Publications in Entomology 1: 347-367.

Timberlake, P.H. 1929. Three new species of the hymenopterous family Encyrtidae from New South Wales. University of California Publications in Entomology 5: 5-18.

Trjapitzin, V.A., S.N. Myartseva, E. Ruiz Cancino & J.M. Coronado-Blanco. 2008. Clave de géneros de Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) de México y un catálogo de las especies. Serie Avispas parasíticas de plagas y otros insectos. Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Cuidad Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. 265 pp.

Zuparko, R.L. 2015. Annotated checklist of California Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera). Zootaxa 4017: 1-126.