J. HYM. RES. Vol. 9(2), 2000, pp. 254-270 Family Group Names in Braconidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea) R. A. Wharton and C. van Achterberg of Texas (RAW) Biological Control Laboratory, Department Entomology, A&M University, Nationaal College Station, Texas 77843-2475, USA; (CVA) Afdeling Entomologie (Hymenoptera), Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. —The known family-group names for Braconidae are listed with their authors and names is with dates of publication. The status of the 224 previously proposed reviewed, particular authors. attention to the validity and priority of names used by nineteenth century The family Braconidae is exceptionally INTERNATIONAL CODES OF diverse. It is the second largest family ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE within the Hymenoptera, and contains As noted by Menke (1997), there have over 15,000 described species. Consider- been detailed presentations on how the able attention has been to the clas- given Third Edition of the International Code of sification of the Braconidae in recent years, Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1985) ap- including the production of comprehen- plies to family-group names in other sive and synopses and catalogs regional groups of Hymenoptera (Fitton and Gauld the of several treatises on publication 1976, Michener 1986). The recently pub- order within the fam- higher relationships lished Fourth Edition (ICZN 1999) con- Shenefelt 1969, 1980, Fischer 1971, ily (e.g., tains only a few pertinent additions. We 1972, 1965, 1970, Mackauer and Capek therefore present a brief discussion here, 1967, Mackauer 1968, Tobias 1976b, Stary focusing of those provisions of particular 1986, Mason 1981a, 1983, van Achterberg relevance to the Braconidae. Some knowl- 1984, Quicke and van 1990, Achterberg edge of the history of braconid classifica- Shaw and Huddleston Wharton et 1991, tion relative to the development of various al. 1992, 1997, van and Quicke Achterberg Codes or Regies is also necessary for a There have been numerous 1992). changes complete understanding of the rationale in the and shifts subfamily classification, for earlier name changes. Prior to the pub- in rank are commonplace. In the same lication of the 1961 version of the Code for and van year, example, Sharkey (1993) (ICZN 1961), for example, replacement of 29 and 43 Achterberg (1993) recognized a family-group name was a standard and in the Braconi- subfamilies, respectively, acceptable practice when its type genus subtribes dae. As subfamilies, tribes, and was discovered to be a junior synonym. are either into units or combined larger This practice was disallowed under the it is essential to split into smaller ones, 1961 Code for names falling into synony- know which family-group names are my after 1960. Nevertheless, some of the available, and which have priority. The older replacement names have become following discussion on available family- well established in the Braconidae, and are group names is therefore offered to facili- still used today (Article 40.2). tate the correct application of family- Names not based on genera are not group names to braconid taxa. We wel- available (Article 11.7). This applies to the come further discussion on this matter. names used by Wesmael (1835) to group Volume 9, Number 2, 2000 255 genera within the Braconidae, names that names later used to establish formal ge- were nevertheless adopted by most sub- neric and suprageneric categories in sub- sequent authors through the first half of sequent papers (Nees von Esenbeck 1819, the 20th century. A family-group name 1834). The collective names so used by proposed after 1930 must also be accom- Nees were Cheloni, Sigalphi, Microgas- a statement differ- panied by of characters teres (-i), Agathides, Bracones, and Bassi. entiating the group, or reference to same, The first four names were clearly used in or be a replacement name (Article 13). the sense of groups of species within a ge- Though there are few such cases in the nus, though this is not apparent unless all Braconidae, it is not always clear when three parts of the series are examined. The these names have met the criteria for genus Sigalphus Latreille, for example, was availability in subsequent publications. divided into "Familia I. Sigalphi" (Nees Article a 13.2.1, new section added to von Esenbeck 1816, p. 247) and "Familia ICZN (1999), further complicates this II. Cheloni" (Nees von Esenbeck 1816, p. problem. 260). The 18 nominal species treated by Articles 35.4 and 40.2 apply to the au- Nees (1816) under his "Familia II. Che- thorship and dates of availability of fam- loni" were all listed in binominal form ily-group names affected by replacements with Sigalphus as the genus name. These for unjustified emendations or synony- four names thus do not satisfy Article mies. We agree with Menke (1997) that the 11.7.1.2 (ICZN 1999) for establishment of results are not particularly satisfying family group names. Nevertheless, there (since a name could then become available has been some confusion in this regard, before the birth of its author), but we ac- with the subfamily names Agathidinae, cept this, and have noted those cases be- Cheloninae and Microgastrinae variously low. Similarly, there are a few family- attributed to Nees, Blanchard (1845) or group names in the Braconidae that are in- Foerster (1862) over the past 30 years. valid because the type genus is a junior The names Bracones Nees von Esen- homonym (Article 39). beck, 1812 and Bassi Nees von Esenbeck, 1812, however, were used in a hierarchical ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT sense to denote The LITERATURE suprageneric groups. nominal genera included in Bracones were The works of Nees von Esenbeck (1812, Stephanus Jurine, Bracon ¥., Microgaster La- 1814, 1816) represent the first attempt to treille, Microdus Nees, and Agathis Latreil- establish a hierarchical framework for the le (Nees von Esenbeck 1812, 1814). Nom- Braconidae. Working in close association inal genera included in Bassi were Bassus with Gravenhorst, who had just published Nees, Eubazus Nees, Helcon Nees, Sigal- his first significant monograph on the phus, and Ichneutes Nees (Nees von Esen- Icheumonidae (Gravenhorst 1807), Nees beck 1814, 1816). Bracones and Bassi are concentrated on the "Ichneumonides ad- the oldest available family group names sciti," which contained the species now in- known to us for members of what is now cluded in the Braconidae. In this series of the family Braconidae. The family name papers (dated 1811-1813, but actually Braconidae can thus be attributed to Nees published from 1812-1816), Nees used the (1812). Bassinae Nees (available from Nees word "familia" to denote both groups of 1812, but not completely described until species within a genus as well as groups Nees 1814, p. 200) is unfortunately prob- of genera. He also gave collective names lematic, since it is based on Bassus Nees, to some of these groups of species and 1814. Nees (1814) inexplicably proposed two of the groups of genera. The collective the name Bassus for Ah/sia Latreille, 1804, names used in this series of papers include citing Latreille's Alysia on the line follow- 256 Journal of Hymenoptera Research ing "Bassus mihi." Nees (1814) failed to presented classifications or arrangements cite the use of the name Bassus by Fabri- of parasitic wasps in general or ichneu- cius (1804), which, based on the accepted mons in particular. Several adopted the type species Ichneumon calculator F., 1798, names proposed by Nees (1812, 1814, belongs to the Agathidinae rather than the 1834) and Leach (1815) to designate Alysiinae. While it is also possible that groups of genera, while others proposed Nees simply misidentified Bassus Fabri- additional names. Most of the newly pro- cius (following the interpretation of Bassus posed names in these early publications by Spinola (1808) and others), Nees (1814) were not based on included genera and nevertheless used the term "mihi" when thus do not satisfy the requirements of the describing Bassus, leading to uncertainty current Code of Zoological Nomenclature in the application of the name. The family (ICZN 1999) for availability of family- group name Bassi is thus based on a junior group names. To our knowledge, only two objective synonym (of Alysia) as well as a other authors proposed valid, family- to junior homonym (of Bassus F.). group names prior the work of Foerster Nees (1819) eventually recognized Alysia, (1862). These were Haliday (1833b) and and later (Nees 1834) replaced the family Blanchard (1845). group name Bassi with Alysioideorum. Ear- Haliday (1833a) presented an outline of lier, however, Leach (1815) proposed Aly- his classification of the parasitic Hyme- siada and Stephens (1829) proposed Alysi- noptera of Britain, then filled in the out- idae as family-group names for the species line with descriptions of the genera and placed in Alysia. Thus, the subfamily name species in subsequent issues of the Ento- Alysiinae dates from Leach (1815), though mological Magazine. In a "Tabula Synop- it is often credited to Stephens (1829). Since tica," Haliday (1833b) proposed a division the family group name Bassi was replaced of Nees' Ichneumones adsciti into 4 tribes: well before 1961, and the replacement name Aphidini, Sigalphini, Braconii, and Agath- has won general acceptance, Article 40.2 enses. The currently used family-group (ICZN 1999) would appear to apply, and names Agathidinae, Aphidiinae, and Si- Bassinae would therefore become a syno- galphinae should therefore be attributed nym of Alysiinae. Nevertheless, Article 39 to Haliday (1833b). Haliday's proposal of (ICZN 1999) also applies, and Bassinae, valid family-group names is often over- based on a junior homonym, is thus invalid, looked because Haliday did not use these If, however, Bassus Nees is treated as a mis- names in the remainder of his work, and identification of Bassus Fabricius, then Bas- later, Haliday (1840) unfortunately aban- sinae could be viewed as a senior synonym doned this arrangement in favor of the di- of Agathidinae.