A photographic catalog of Ceraphronoidea types at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN), with comments on unpublished notes from Paul Dessart

The majority of Ceraphronoidea (Insecta: hymenoptera) species were described in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with most of these early descriptions relying on text alone. Few type specimens have been illustrated and even fewer have been photographed, posing a challenge to taxonomists working on the group today. here, we attempt to remove the barriers obstructing Ceraphronoidea research by creating a photographic catalog of the type specimens present at the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle (MNhN) in Paris, France. We discuss the history of the ceraphronoid specimens present in the collection and provide comments on unpublished species notes from former Ceraphronoidea taxonomist Paul Dessart. We synonymize Ceraphron myrmecophilus kieffer, 1913 syn. nov. with Aphanogmus abdominalis (Thomson, 1858) (hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae) based on the male genitalia morphology, body shape and presence of foveae on the median length of the mesoscutellum. We also report the discovery of the missing male holotype of Ceraphron testaceus (risbec, 1953) (hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae) and several potential types of Aphangomus aphidi (risbec, 1955) (hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae).

For pinned and point-mounted specimens, labels were removed from the pin and imaged with a cellphone camera for transcription at a later date. Specimens were positioned and stabilized for imaging by using molding clay (Sculpey, Polyform Products Company, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, USA). For each specimen, series of images were taken manually and then aligned and stacked by using Zerene stacker 1.04 Build T201706041920. Adobe Photoshop Elements Version 3.1 was used to create fi gure plates. Specimens were databased and original images of specimens and labels were uploaded to the online content management system, MX (http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mx-database). All fi gures and tables are available on fi gshare (https://fi gshare.com/projects/A_Photographic_Catalog_of_Ceraphronoidea_Types_at_ the_Mus_um_National_d_Histoire_Naturelle_Paris_MNHN_with_comments_on_unpublished_notes_ from_Paul_Dessart/36449) and on ScholarSphere (https://doi.org/10.18113/S1JD10).
Unique identifi ers from the MNHN (MNHN EY#####) were assigned to each specimen. Identifi ers were placed on the pins of dried specimens and added to the vial for specimens in ethanol. For slides, identifi ers were glued either to the label or to the glass slide with Scotch gel universal (3M Company, Maplewood, MN, USA). Identifi ers were placed on the front of the slide if there was space; otherwise, they were glued to the back of the slide.
In cases where specimens were dissected and had separate pieces that were slide mounted, pointed or stored in ethanol, a separate identifi er was assigned to each portion of the specimen. Thus, some specimens will have more than one identifi er associated with them. Specimens that were dissected by Paul Dessart also bear his unique identifi cation numbers (Dessart prép. no. ####/###) matching the specimen to the slides, and these have been indicated for each species below.
All specimen label data is present on MX and in Supplementary File 1. The specimen data in Supplementary File 1 was also used to produce a Darwin Core fi le (Supplementary File 2) following the template given by the Integrated Publishing Toolkit (https://www.gbif.org/news/82852/new-darwin-corespreadsheet-templates-simplify-data-preparation-and-publishing) and will be made available on GBIF. For label information given in Supplementary File 2, separate lines are delimited by "||" and seperate labels are delimited by "++". For specimens that did not have locality information given on labels, the locality information is reproduced from the original sources under 'Material examined' Section.
All systematic literature lists, distributions and locations of type specimens (see Table 1) are modifi ed from Johnson & Musetti (2004). Updates are shown in bold font. Four-letter museum collection codens are updated from Johnson & Musetti (2004) and Arnett et al. (1993) using Evenhuis (2018), and are provided in Table 1. Following Johnson & Musetti (2004), the Neotropical realm is considered to include Mexico and the Caribbean, the Oriental realm is considered to include China and India, and the Australian realm is considered to include New Guinea and all islands east of it.

A note on specimens in ethanol
Several Kieffer type specimens are stored in ethanol, in separate glass vials stored together in a glass bail-lid jar (Fig. 1). These specimens were collected by entomologists Ch. Alluaud and R. Jeannel during an expedition to Africa from 1911 to 1912, then sent to Kieffer for identifi cation and description (Kieffer 1913b). After reviewing the literature (specifi cally : Kieffer 1913b;Risbec 1950;Dessart 1966a), there are no indications that these specimens were ever mounted. It is likely that the specimens were collected in ethanol, and that Kieffer described species from wet or temporarily dried specimens, as was probably the case with Diapriinae wasps collected during the same expedition (Notton 2014). A list of these specimens is provided in Table 2.
None of the specimens stored in ethanol bear labels with collection information. It appears that locality labels were never made for Diapriinae specimens collected during the 1911-1912 African expedition (David G. Notton, pers. comm.); the same appears to be true for the ceraphronoid specimens.  Kieffer, 1913 (MNHN EY25359).
him by collector Peter Cameron and wrote specimen notes and identifi cations on postcards, which he then mailed back to Cameron separately of the specimens (Notton 2014).

Distribution
Nearctic and palearctic.

Comments
CT found one male specimen marked as the holotype of Ceraphron myrmecophilus Kieffer, 1913 in the MNHN collections. However, there is also a male specimen marked as the holotype of this species at the NHMUK (NHMUK010812101), as well as an additional female specimen (NHMUK010812106) marked as an allotype. Concerning the female specimen, Kieffer only described the male of the species (1913a) and an allotype has never been published. Though it is not a part of Kieffer's syntype series, it is worth noting that the female was captured by the same collector in the same month and year as the two males, and mounted in the same way.
Both the male NHMUK and MNHN specimens were originally card-mounted (Dessart removed the MNHN specimen from its mount when he dissected it), with collection information written on the front or back of the card mounts. Both specimens were collected at Nethy Bridge from Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761. Based on the similar handwriting and mountings, it appears that both specimens were collected by H. Donisthorpe, though only the NHMUK specimen bears a label with Donisthorpe's name. The MNHN specimen was collected on "14.vi.12", whereas the NHMUK specimen was collected on "12.VI.12" (the female specimen was captured on "23.VI.12").
The original locality information given in  (written in French) is "Angleterre: Londres, myrmecophile (H. Donisthorpe)", which does not match either male specimen. However, Kieffer (1914c) (written in German) re-describes the species and gives the locality information as "Mit Formica rufa L., im Juni. England (Nethy Bridge)". Kieffer has been known to make mistakes in correctly reporting specimen localities, especially when the handwriting of the collector was poor (see Notton 2014). It appears that Kieffer made a mistake in his 1913a publication, which he corrected in his 1914c paper (although Nethy Bridge is actually located in Scotland, not England).
Dessart dissected the card-mounted specimen at the MNHN (MNHN EY22475) and made three slide preparations (prép. no. 6605-181) of an anterior and posterior wing (MNHN EY22463), the male genitalia and metasoma (MNHN EY22464), and the right antenna and the left mid-and hind legs (MNHN EY22465). Although Dessart examined the specimens at both the MNHN and the NHMUK, it does not appear that he ever declared a lectotype or published anything on this species (Johnson & Musetti 2004). However, Dessart did leave a label on the female at the NHMUK which reads "Not allotype since only ♂ described… but ♂ and ♀ = APH. crassiceps (K)".

Comments
There is one female specimen stored in ethanol that Kieffer originally described as the type of Ceraphron oriphilus (1913b), but Dessart synonymized this species with Aphanogmus fumipennis Thomson, 1858Thomson, (1966a. There are no locality labels with the specimen, though there is a determination label from Kieffer indicating "Type 19". Dessart dissected the specimen and made three slide preparations (prép. no. 6505/182) of the left posterior leg (MNHN EY22432), both fore wings and one hind wing (MNHN EY22433), and one antenna (MNHN EY22434). The rest of the specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25361). (Kieffer, 1913) Figs 6-7

Comments
This species was originally described as Ceraphron origenus by Kieffer (1913b) from a series of male and female specimens. According to Dessart (1966a), the original syntypic series consisted of fi ve (Kieffer, 1913), lectotype, ♀, lateral view (MNHN EY 25358). B. Left antenna of the female lectotype (MNHN EY22436). C. The last Ceraphron origenus Kieffer, 1913, paralectotype that Dessart determined to be a different species of Aphanogmus, possibly a new species (MNHN EY25357). females and one male. However, upon reviewing the specimens himself, Dessart found that the six specimens actually belonged to three different Aphanogmus species (Dessart 1966a).

Fig. 7. A. Aphanogmus origenus
Dessart identifi ed the male and one female specimen as Aphanogmus fumipennis based on antennal characters and the male genitalia (Fig. 6). He made a slide preparation (prép. no. 6505/06) of the male metasoma and genitalia (MNHN EY22435), and appears to have left the remaining bleached fragments of the male in an ethanol vial with the female specimen (MNHN EY25350).
In looking at the other syntypes, Dessart found that three of the remaining females belonged to the same species . Rather than synonymize Ceraphron origenus with Aphanogmus fumipennis, he chose a lectotype and paratypes from these three females to represent a new combination, Aphanogmus origenus, then re-described the species and noted that the male is unknown (Dessart 1966a). He dissected the female lectotype and made two slide preparations (prép. no. 6504/261), with one slide containing the left antenna (MNHN EY22436), and the other containing the left fore wing and hind wing (MNHN EY22437). The rest of the female lectotype is stored in an ethanol vial (MNHN EY25358). Two female paralectotypes are stored together in another ethanol vial (MNHN EY25352). These two specimens were not imaged.
The state of the last female paralectotype remains uncertain (Fig. 7C). Dessart (1966a: 11) provided the following comments: "également dépourvue de rebord périphérique au scutellum mais à antennes non massuées, représente sans doute une nouvelle espèce malheureusement en trop mauvais état pour être bien décrite". Dessart determined that the specimen was an Aphanogmus and not a Ceraphron, and based on differences in the antenna and scutellum, thought that the specimen could represent a new species. However, he thought the specimen's condition was too poor to describe a new species from. The specimen currently remains in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25357).

Comments
Thomson (1858: 305) described the species Aphanogmus fasciipennis from male and female specimens from Lund, and described a female variation from the same locality that differed in the following regard: "antennarum basi pedibusque testaceis, abdomine. piceo.". Kieffer (1907b: 199) keyed out the species and also described a female variation of his own with different coloration and antennal characters, collected from "Bitche, en octobre", which he named radialis.
It is unclear whether the female variations described by Thomson and Kieffer are the same; though Kieffer's variation was collected from a different locality than Thomson's, it is described in a similar way, with a lighter coloration on the antenna, legs and abdomen. Kieffer (1914c) later changed his variation to species status. Kelner-Pillault (1958) reported a female found in Kieffer's collection in Bitche, which was considered a holotype and donated to the MNHN.  Dessart (1963a) redescribed Aphanogmus fasciipennis and briefl y discussed the variation Thomson had described. However, the only specimen of the variation Dessart had viewed for this publication was missing from the mount except for a few tarsi, so he was unable to determine if it was actually a different species or not. Dessart did not view the holotype female specimen at the MNHN until 1966, according to the label he placed on the specimen. Dessart dissected the female specimen and made two slide mounts (prép. no. 6605/252), leaving the rest of the specimen on its point mount (MNHN EY25347). One slide contains the anterior left wing and posterior right wing (MNHN EY22466), while the other has the complete left antenna and fragments of the right antenna (MNHN EY22467).
Though Dessart (1966a) discusses several of the MNHN specimens, this specimen is not one of them. It appears that Dessart dissected the specimen in 1966 but then left it out of the fi nal publication. According to Johnson & Musetti (2004), Dessart never published any further papers discussing Aphanogmus fasciipennis or A. radialis. He did add a label to the holotype female at the MNHN commenting "=A. fasc. f. typique!", but he never offi cially synonymized it with Aphanogmus fasciipennis Thomson, 1858(Johnson & Musetti 2004. While the original specimen bears a holotype label, Dessart did not add any holotype labels to his slide preparations: instead, he marked them with Kieffer's original determination, Aphanogmus fasciipennis var. radialis.

Distribution
Afrotropical. Kieffer (1913) described Ceraphron alticola from a female specimen or specimens, though this is the only type known for this species to date. At this point, we consider this specimen to be a syntype. There are no original locality or type labels with the specimen, though there is a note reading "Ceraphron alticola || Type 19 K.". The same type number appears on the label for Aphanogmus fumipennis (vial MNHN EY25361), originally the type of Kieffer's Ceraphron oriphilus.

Distribution
Nearctic and palearctic.

Comments
Dessart described the species from three male and two female specimens. According to Dessart (1975), the male holotype and one male paratype are deposited at the Zoological Museum at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark (ZMUC), which was indicated in Johnson & Musetti (2004). However, missing from Johnson & Musetti (2004), there is another male paratype at the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium (ISNB), a female paratype in the Cl. Bésuchet collection in There are a few errors and inconsistencies in the original publication. Dessart (1975) gives the identifi er used for the allotype specimen as "N°7312/111", but the actual number on both the specimens and the slides is N°7312/141. The label information given in the paper matches the specimen, although Dessart (1975: 49) reports an additional label saying "Contre mur / dans la / maison" which is missing from the actual specimen. Still, there is no doubt that this is the allotype specimen Dessart studied in describing Ceraphron barbieri. Risbec, 1950 Fig. 11 Ceraphron cavifrons Risbec, 1950 ARAMBOURG, CHAPPUIS, JEANNEL, 1932-1933." (Risbec 1950: 552); MNHN EY22473.

Distribution
Afrotropical. Risbec (1950) described the species from a single male, and thought it could be related to C. oriphilus, C. naivashae or C. alticola, three species all described by Kieffer based on single female specimens. Risbec comments that Kieffer's descriptions are not detailed enough to accurately match this male to any of the three females, suggesting that Risbec had not viewed those three Kieffer types at the time of the 1950 publication. The introduction to his key to African and Malagasy Ceraphronoidea (Risbec 1955) also omits C. oriphilus, C. naivashae and C. alticola due to his confusion with Kieffer's original descriptions. Even though all three specimens were deposited at the MNHN, it appears that Risbec never viewed them.

Comments
Dessart did not dissect the male holotype or leave any labels on it indicating that he had viewed it, but he did include the species in a key to African Ceraphron species south of the Sahara, where he wrote that the male had been "insuffi samment décrit" and described a few additional characters (Dessart 1989: 227). Thus, we know that Dessart did view this specimen. Dessart (1989) distinguished this species from C. alticola and C. naivashae in this key and had also previously synonymized Ceraphron oriphilus with Aphanogmus fumipennis (Dessart 1966a), so it is not likely that this specimen is the male to any of Kieffer's three female specimens, contrary to what Risbec (1950) thought.
The male holotype specimen (MNHN EY22473) is on a double point mount. The pin through the specimen made it diffi cult to image. The specimen is missing the last two fl agellomeres from the right antenna. It was not possible to image the male genitalia, but the specimen appears to have harpe that are pointed and longer than the gonostipes, with distal tufts of setae. Kieffer, 1913 Fig. 12 Ceraphron crenulatus Kieffer, 1913b: 10, 11 (Kieffer 1913b: 11); MNHN EY25351, EY22438, EY22439.

Afrotropical.
European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60 (2019) Comments Kieffer (1913b) only described the female of this species, naming it for its crenulate antennae. Dessart (1964: 120, comments) noted that the species is similar to Ceraphron xanthosoma, another species Kieffer described from Africa that also has crenulate antennae, "comme bon nombre d'autres espèces, d'ailleurs", but that they differ in coloration and the shape of the antenna.
It was not until 1966 that Dessart re-described and illustrated the holotype female specimen of Ceraphron crenulatus. Dessart asserted that the species was easily recognizable by its reduced wing state, the shape of the head (especially the occipital and vertical keels), the ocellar depressions, and the reduced eye size (Dessart 1966a). He also noted that the reduced eyes and large apical antennal section are shared between this species and the palearctic species Ceraphron pristomicrops Dessart, 1965, which has no ocelli, even more reduced wings, and a broader metasomatic groove.
The specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25351), and does not have any locality labels associated with it, though it does bear determination labels from Dessart and Kieffer. Kieffer's determination label reads "Ceraphron crenulatus || type 39 K.". Dessart made two slide preparations (prép. no. 6503/301), one of the right antennae (MNHN EY22438) and one of the anterior and posterior right wings (MNHN EY22439). Oddly, the preparation year given on the slides is 1965, while the label Dessart put on the ethanol specimen is from 1966. Kieffer, 1913 Fig. 13 Ceraphron Naivashae Kieffer, 1913b (Kieffer 1913b: 13); MNHN EY25360, EY22429 to EY22431.

Distribution
Afrotropical. Kieffer (1913b) only described the female of this species, naming it for Naivasha, Africa, where it was collected. The female specimen at the MNHN is the only known specimen, which Dessart (1966a) considered as the holotype. Dessart (1966a) re-described the species from this female specimen and illustrated the wing and antennae. Risbec (1950) proposed that Ceraphron cavifrons could be the male matching the female of C. naivashae (or C. oriphilus or C. alticola), while Risbec (1953b) suggested that Ceraphron soavinae could be the male matching this species. Dessart (1966a) comments on Risbec's musings, saying that neither species seemed to match Ceraphron naivashae from their descriptions, though he had not viewed the type of either at that point. We know that Dessart later viewed C. cavifrons, providing diagnostic characters for the species and distinguishing it from C. naivashae in his key (Dessart 1989). Dessart never found the type of C. soavinae; however, he noted that Risbec (1953b) had described the species as a type of Ceraphron without a median mesoscutal furrow. Since Dessart knew of only one Ceraphron species from America with a partially absent median mesoscutal groove and no Ceraphron species where it was completely missing, he thought that either Risbec had made a mistake or that the species was actually an Aphanogmus (Dessart 1989: 216). Dessart (1989) kept C. soavinae in his key, since he had not observed any specimens, but the key distinguishes it from C. naivashae, and it is highly unlikely that the male and female match. Dessart dissected the specimen and made three preparations (prep. no. 6505/I81) of the right antenna (MNHN EY22429), left antenna (MNHN EY22430) and left wing (MNHN EY22431). The rest of the specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25360). It is uncertain when Dessart dissected the specimen: the year given on the slides is 1965, while the year written on his determination label on the specimen in ethanol is 1966. The specimen in ethanol does not have any locality labels associated with it, though it does bear a determination label from Kieffer reading "Ceraphron Naivashae K || type 14". Kieffer, 1907  Material examined Syntype FRANCE • ♀; "Bitche" (Kieffer 1907b: 247); MNHN EY22476.

Palearctic.
Comments Kieffer (1907b) only described the female of this species. The female specimen at the MNHN appears to have been collected at the university in Bitche where Kieffer used to teach, and subsequently donated to the MNHN (Kelner-Pillault 1958). The specimen (MNHN EY22476) is point mounted and in good condition.
Dessart left a label on the specimen in 1966 indicating that it is actually Ceraphron pedes Fӧrster, 1861 but never offi cially synonymized it according to Johnson & Musetti (2004). There is a second female specimen at the Natural History Museum in London (NHMUK010812034) that Dessart viewed in 1965 and also identifi ed as Ceraphron pedes Fӧrster, 1861. It is unclear why Dessart never published this. Both the NHMUK and MNHN specimens were collected by P. Cameron and have determination labels from Kieffer, and are presumably syntypes. Dessart labeled the type at the NHMUK as a syntype, but the type at the MNHN still bears a holotype label. Dessart, 1966 Fig. 15 Ceraphron apterus Kieffer, 1913b

Distribution
Afrotropical. Dessart (1966a) provides insight into the history of the naming of this species and the mistakes that abounded. Zetterstedt (1840) described a species called Ceraphron apterus, which  transferred to the genus Conostigmus Dahlbom, 1858, even though Kieffer had himself described a species called Conostigmus apterus in the same work. Kieffer (1909) tried to rectify this mistake by renaming his Conostigmus apterus to Conostigmus apteryx. However, Kieffer (1913b) also described Ceraphron apterus, then referred to "Conostigmus apterus Zetterstedt" as "Conostigmus apterus Kieffer" (Kieffer 1914c). Dessart (1966a) set the record straight on these species and offered Ceraphron parvalatus as a nomen nuvum for Ceraphron apterus Kieffer. The new name fi xes more than one mistake: Dessart (1966a) noted that the species is not actually apterous, as Kieffer described, but has reduced wings. It is for this reason that Dessart (1966a) chose the new name parvalatus, with the Latin word "parvus" meaning "small".  described the male and female of the species, which Dessart (1966a) redescribed and illustrated, confi rming that the male and female both belong to the same species. The male and female at the MNHN are the only known specimens, and are both considered as the syntypes that Kieffer observed. Dessart (1966a) designated the female as the lectotype and the male as the allolectotype, dissecting both and making slide preparations.

Comments
The female lectotype (prep. no. 6503/222) has a single slide preparation of one antenna (MNHN EY22443), with the rest of the specimen in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25362). The vial contains a determination label from Kieffer labeled with the number "Type 70". The male allolectotype specimen (prep. no. 6503/221) has three slide preparations associated with it: the metasoma without the genitalia, in a poor preparation full of bubbles (MNHN EY22440); the male antenna in pieces, with three pieces marked in one black circle, and the last four fl agellomeres in another circle (MNHN EY22441); and the right wing (MNHN EY22442). The original male specimen is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25363), and has a determination label from Kieffer also labeled with "Type 70".
The male specimen is point mounted (MNHN EY25344), with the ant it parasitized point mounted underneath it. The antennae, one fore wing, one hind wing, and several portions of the legs are missing. The abdomen is detached and glued to the point. There is a label from Dessart indicating that there was at least one slide preparation associated with the specimen (prép. no. 6605/253), but CT was unable to locate any corresponding slides at the MNHN. Several months later, MNHN collection manager Agnièle Touret-Alby was able to locate two slides, one of the male genitalia and one containing two legs and wings. The slides were originally borrowed with other material by Dessart. A colleague returned the bulk of the material to the MNHN after Dessart's death, including the dried specimen but not the associated slides. Upon contact, the colleague generously located the slides and mailed them to the MNHN. Both slides were imaged by Agnièle Touret-Alby © MNHN. (Dessart & Masner, 1965) Figs 18-19
The female holotype is glued to cardstock (MNHN EY25339), with one slide preparation (prép. no. 6501/104) of the right antenna in poor condition (MNHN EY22448). The male allotype is contained within a vial that is point mounted through the cork (MNHN EY25340). There are four associated slides (prép. no. 6501/103), including the left antenna (MNHN EY22446), the right anterior leg (MNHN EY22445), and the last few segments of the metasoma, the pedicel and F1-5 of the right antenna (MNHN EY22444). The fourth slide, containing the male genitalia (MNHN EY22447), is in such poor condition that it is not possible to actually view the genitalia. It is worth mentioning that the microscope preparation numbers given by Dessart & Cancemi (1987) do not match the actual preparation numbers given on the specimen.
There is also a female (MNHN EY 25341) and male (MNHN EY 25342) paratype, both of which are glued to cardstock. Whole-body images were taken of the male paratype in place of the allotype. The female paratype was not imaged. Kieffer, 1907 Fig. 20 Conostigmus Leviventris Kieffer, 1907a: 139, ♀. MNHN.

Palearctic.
European Journal of Taxonomy 502: 1-60 (2019)  described the female of the species, but it is unknown how many specimens Kieffer observed or where the specimen(s) are. There is a double point-mounted female specimen at the MNHN (MNHN EY25346) with locality information matching that given in . Dessart left a label on this specimen in 1973 designating it the female paralectotype of Conostigmus leviventris, while also leaving the comment "= rufescens f. ailee!". However, Dessart never formally synonymized C. leviventris with C. rufescens. The identity and whereabouts of the implied lectotype are unknown. The female specimen is double point mounted and in poor condition. Unfortunately, the specimen is missing its head, and the pin it is double point-mounted on has begun to rust. Kieffer, 1913 Figs 21-22 Conostigmus pedester Kieffer, 1913b (Kieffer 1913b: 14); MNHN EY25354, EY22452, EY22453.

Note
The specimens do not include individual labels with locality information, so it is uncertain which specimens came from which locality.

Distribution
Afrotropical. Kieffer (1913b) described both the male and female of Conostigmus pedester from specimens collected by Ch. Alluaud and R. Jeannel on their 1911-1912 African expedition. Dessart (1966a) redescribed and illustrated the species. There are fi ve specimens in all at the MNHN, two males and three females. Dessart (1966a) designated a female lectotype and male allolectotype, with the remaining specimens as paralectotypes. The type information is missing from the specimens, but is provided in Dessart (1966a).

Comments
The female lectotype is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25354). There are two slide preparations (prép. no. 6506/042), one with the left antenna (MNHN EY22452) and one with a reduced wing (MNHN EY22453).
The male allolectotype is also in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25353). There are two slide preparations (prép. no. 6506/041), one with the left antenna (MNHN EY22450) and the other with the male genitalia in poor condition (MNHN EY22451). The right antenna is missing.
The male paralectotype is in ethanol (vial MNHN EY25356) and bears a determination label from Kieffer marked with "Type 44". The metasoma is missing the end segments and genitalia, which was noted in Dessart (1966a). The two female paralectotypes are together in the same ethanol vial (MNHN EY25355), and bear a determination label from Kieffer marked with "Type 43". The two female paralectotypes were not imaged.

Distribution
Palearctic.  Dessart (1979b) described this species from a single female specimen. In his publication, he explains that he placed the species in the genus Dendrocerus mainly because of the ocellar triangle, which is an isosceles triangle and has a broad base in this species, whereas in species of Conostigmus the ocellar triangle is more equilateral. He notes that the species also lacks a sternaulus, which is sometimes present in Conostigmus but always absent in Dendrocerus. However, he does admit that the species bears similarities to the genus Conostigmus, notably in the scape, the presence of the supraclypeal depression, and the slim appearance of the noutalices and the mesosoma (Dessart 1979b).

Palearctic.
Comments Dessart (1974) described this species from male and female specimens. The species was named after Dr. G. Remaudière, who reared the specimens from aphids. Dessart reported that the holotype, the allotype, one female paratype, and seven male paratypes were given to Dr. Remaudière at the IPCP: in addition, Dessart (1974) reports a male paratype and a female paratype deposited at the MHNG, and four additional female paratypes and four male paratypes at the ISNB.
It appears that the specimens deposited at the IPCP were moved to the MNHN, likely following Dr. Remaudière's retirement. CT found four specimens, including the holotype, the allotype and two male paratypes at the MNHN. CT contacted the IPCP but was told that the specimens are not there; it is uncertain what happened to the remaining six paratype specimens.  The male holotype specimen has three associated microscope preparations (prép. no. 7301/191). One slide (MNHN EY22469) contains the male genitalia, which are in poor condition; the second (MNHN EY22468) contains the metasoma and fragments. The last slide (MNHN EY22472) with the right antenna is broken, with the pieces gathered together in an envelope. The remainder of the specimen is point mounted (MNHN EY25335).
The female allotype is also point mounted (MNHN EY25336) and has two slide preparations (prép. no. 7301/194), with one slide containing the right fore and hind wings (MNHN EY22470) and the other slide containing the right antenna (MNHN EY22471). There are also two male paratypes that are point mounted (MNHN EY25337 and MNHN EY25338) and were not imaged.

Distribution
Afrotropical. Risbec (1955) originally described the species Ceraphron aphidi from male and female specimens collected in Tsimbazaza, located in Antananarivo, Madagascar. However, no repository for these specimens was ever indicated. The type information was given as follows: "Localité et hôles. Tsimbazaza. Parasites de pucerons sur les feuilles de Schinus mollis 5 ♀, 1 ♂. Sortie des adultes 19.6.1952. N° 1071." (Risbec 1955: 220). A second set of locality information, presumably of more paratypes, is given as follows: "Même localite. Parasites de pucerons sur les feuilles de Bauhinia sp. Elevage du 12.7.1951. Sortie des adultes 6.8.1951. N°912. RENAUD PAULIAN" (Risbec 1955: 221). On a fresh line, what appears to be a third set of locality information is given as "Bekily VIII 1933. 12 females. A. SEYRIG" (Risbec 1955: 221). Dessart (1962) acquired a loan of specimens on a microscope preparation that was deposited at Antananarivo, possibly the PBZT in Antananarivo, Madagascar. The microscope preparation Dessart viewed was labeled only with the words "Ceraphron aphidi RISBEC", but contained fi ve females and one male specimen, corresponding with the fi rst series of types described by Risbec (1955). Dessart (1962) assumed these specimens to be the one male and fi ve female specimens cited in Risbec (1955), and moved the species from Ceraphron to Aphanogmus based on antennal characters.  (Risbec, 1955). A. The double-point mounted syntype female and labels, s howing the "TYPE" label (MNHN EY22474). B. One of the lots of specimens labeled as Ceraphron aphidi (Risbec, 1955), and mounted on slides in glycerine, presumably by Risbec (MNHN EY22460). C. Lateral habitus of the double-point mounted syntype female (MNHN EY22474).

Comments
At the MNHN, CT discovered one double point mounted female specimen labeled as Ceraphron aphidi Risbec and bearing a label saying "TYPE" (MNHN EY22474). The locality information on this specimen matches one of those given in Risbec (1955), and it is likely one of the twelve females mentioned in this publication. It is uncertain who put the type label on this, or where the other specimens from the same locality are, but based on the matching locality label information, we presume this to be one of the missing syntypes. This specimen is absent from the discussion of the species in Dessart (1962), but we know that Dessart viewed it, because he added a label to it in 1962 (presumably after the publication) identifying it as Ceraphron braconiphaga Ghesquière, 1942. Though later Dessart (1971 synonymized Ceraphron braconiphaga with Aphanogmus fi jiensis, he makes no mention of this specimen in that publication, and never offi cially synonymized the species Aphanogmus aphidi with Aphanogmus fi jiensis during his lifetime (Johnson & Musetti 2004).
In the slide collection, CT also found a case of Risbec slides containing four slides labeled as Ceraphron aphidi Risbec. Each slide preparation had multiple specimens fl oating freely in glycerine, protected by an additional glass coverslide attached with wax along the edges. These slides do not appear to be types according to their limited locality information, but they appear to be prepared in the same way as the other Risbec slides mentioned in Dessart (1962). Though we know Dessart viewed the double point mounted specimen, there is no indication that he ever saw these four slide-mounted specimen lots at the MNHN. Perhaps if he had been able to study these specimens, he would have been able to confi rm whether these specimens are actually Ceraphron braconiphaga or Aphanogmus fi jiensis.

Distribution
Afrotropical. Risbec (1953a: 560) described the new genus Ceranogmus as a "Genre voisin de Ceraphron et Aphanogmus". Risbec (1953a) described the species Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec as the type species for this genus, providing a detailed description and illustration. The species was described based on a single male with the following locality information: "Adiopodoumé. Sur galles de Phytolyma lata 7-1951. A Ledoux." (Risbec 1953a: 563). A type repository was never indicated for the specimen.

Comments
Dessart synonymized this genus with Ceraphron (Dessart 1962) and later included the species Ceraphron testaceus in a key to African species, but these were based largely on the description and the illustrations of Ceranogmus testaceus that Risbec (1953a) provided. It is clear from his writing and the question marks peppered throughout it that Dessart never found or observed the type specimen for the species for himself. CT found 2 slides labeled "Ceranogmus testaceus Risbec" in the same case of Risbec material containing the Ceraphron aphidi slides in the MNHN collections. Like the slides for Ceraphron aphidi, each slide preparation had one or multiple specimens fl oating freely in glycerine, protected by an additional glass cover slide attached with wax along the edges. One slide, MNHN EY22457, has information that matches the locality information given for the type in Risbec (1953a). The slide contains a male specimen with the head detached. Since Risbec did not always label his type specimens (David G. Notton pers. comm.), it very likely that this specimen is the missing holotype, and we consider it as such. The second slide (MNHN EY22458) also contains a male specimen with the head detached, but the collection information does not match. Fig. 27. The rediscovered male holotype of Ceraphron testaceus (Risbec, 1953) (MNHN EY22457). A. The slide preparation, which consists of glycerine underneath a glass coverslip sealed with wax. B. A dorsal view of the head and antennae of the male specimen. C. A lateral habitus of the body, legs and wings. Imaging was diffi cult due to the state of the preparation. Kieffer, 1907 Fig. 28 Conostigmus Gestroi Kieffer, 1907b: 159, ♀. Conostigmus kaszabi Szabo, 1979: 89, ♀. HNHM. Synonymized with reservations by Dessart (1983).

Comments
When Kieffer (1907b: 159) described the species Conostigmus gestroi from a female, he noted the existence of a "variété à tête chagrinée et parsemée de points très distincts, fl agellum mince, fi liforme, hanches brun noir, " collected from France at "Maisons-Laffi te (De Gaulle)". Although the location of the holotype of the species is unknown, Dessart found a female specimen in the MNHN that was consistent with the variety Kieffer described. Dessart viewed and left a label on the specimen in 1973 considering it a "var. illeg.". Though Dessart hesitantly synonymized Conostigmus kaszabi with C. gestroi (1983), this publication does not comment on the MNHN specimen or mention C. gestroi as a "var. illeg." The female specimen is card mounted (MNHN EY25345) and in good condition, with no pieces missing.

Material examined
None (see Comments).

Distribution
Nearctic and palearctic.

Comments
CT found one slide preparation (prép. no. 7403/221) containing only the male genitalia (MNHN EY22454) that Dessart made in 1974. The rest of the specimen could not be located. Though this specimen is not a type, we felt it was a valuable specimen to image since there are no photographs of Dendrocerus serricornis to date.  provides illustrations of the male genitalia, which correspond well with the genitalia imaged.

Discussion
With the majority of Ceraphronoidea species descriptions consisting solely of written text published over a century ago, taxonomists must be able to view type specimens to conduct research on the superfamily. However, the type specimens of Ceraphronoidea are scattered across different collections around the world, making it diffi cult and expensive for researchers to study them fi rsthand for ongoing studies in biocontrol, the evolution of Hymenoptera, and more. Our aim is to remove the barriers obstructing research on Ceraphronoidea by photographing the type specimens at the MNHN and making these images available to those who wish to study them. In providing these images, as well as our own comments and insights on the species and specimens photographed, we hope to help guide those working on this diverse and fascinating group of parasitoid wasps in the future.