Number 110: 1-11 ISSN 1026-051X February 2002 REVIEW OF THE MYMARIDAE (HYMENOPTERA, CHALCIDOIDEA) OF PRIMORSKII KRAI: GENERA CHAETOMYMAR OGLOBLIN, HIMOPOLYNEMA TAGUCHI, AND STEPHANODES ENOCK S. V. Triapitsyn and V. V. Berezovskiy Entomology Research Museum, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA The species of the genera Chaetomymar, Himopolynema, and Stephanodes from Russia are reviewed. H. parviscutum Taguchi, S. reduvioli (Perkins), and S. similis (Foerster) are newly recorded from Russia. H. aequum (Girault), comb. n. from Australia is redescribed. KEY WORDS: Hymenoptera, Mymaridae, taxonomy, Russia. С. В. Тряпицын, В. В. Березовский. Обзор семейства Mymaridae (Hyme- noptera, Chalcidoidea) Приморского края: роды Chaetomymar Ogloblin, Himopolynema Taguchi и Stephanodes Enock //Дальневосточный энтомолог. 2001. N 110. С. 1-11. Дан обзор видов родов Chaetomymar, Himopolynema и Stephanodes фауны России. H. parviscutum Taguchi, S. reduvioli (Perkins) и S. similis (Foerster) впервые отмечаются для России. Дано переописание H. aequum (Girault), comb. n. из Австралии. Исследовательский музей энтомологии, Депертамент энтомологии, Калифорнийский университет, Калифорния 92521, США. 1 INTRODUCTION This paper continues a series of articles describing species diversity of some genera of Mymaridae in Primorskii krai, Russia. Our two previous publications from this series dealt with the genera Mymar Curtis, 1829 (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy, 2001), that also included a section on the methods, and Acmopolynema Ogloblin, 1946 (Berezovskiy & Triapitsyn, 2001). Two out of the three genera treated here, Chaetomymar Ogloblin and Himopo- lynema Taguchi, occur in the Old World only, with the majority of known species in the Oriental region. They are represented in Russia by one species each, both from southern Primorskii krai. The third one, Stephanodes Enock, is a cosmopolitan genus occurring throughout Russia, and therefore we expanded its treatment here beyond Primorskii krai by including material from the European part of Russia, that belongs to S. similis (Foerster, 1847). Triapitsyn & Huber (2000) mentioned one or two undetermined species of Stephanodes in Primorskii krai; however, after slide- mounting of the specimens from Gornotayozhnoye, we determined that all of them belong to just one species, S. reduvioli (Perkins, 1905). Terms for morphological characters are those of Gibson (1997). All measure- ments are given in micrometers as length or, where necessary, as length/width. New distribution records are asterisked (*). Acronyms for the depositories of specimens are as follows: EMEC, Essig Museum, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA; IBPV, Institute of Biology and Pedology, Vladivostok, Russia; MLPA, Museo de La Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina; QMBA, Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; UCRC, Entomology Research Museum, University of California, Riverside, California, USA; ZIN, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia. Genus Chaetomymar Ogloblin, 1946 Chaetomymar Ogloblin, 1946: 277. Type species: Chaetomymar kusnezovi Ogloblin, 1946, Ussurijsk, Primorskii krai, Russia, by monotypy and original designation. Chaetomymar: Annecke & Doutt, 1961: 34; Schauff, 1984: 56; Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000: 613. COMMENTS. Besides the short original description of the genus by Ogloblin (1946), Chaetomymar was later diagnosed by Annecke & Doutt (1961) and Schauff (1984). The genus will be treated in detail in the forthcoming revision by Dr. John T. Huber (personal communication). Chaetomymar is mainly an Afrotropical and Oriental genus, with 2 described species in the Palaearctic region, keyed by Triapitsyn & Huber (2000), and also with several Australasian species. One species was accidentally introduced recently into Hawaii (Beardsley & Huber, 2000). All reliable host records are from Cicadellidae (Huber, 1986; Beardsley & Huber, 2000); it appears that at least some Chaetomymar species are associated with leafhopper hosts laying eggs in leaves of trees. 2 Only one species, C. kusnezovi, has been recorded so far from Russia (southern Primorskii krai); however, presence of the Japanese species C. hishimoni Taguchi, 1975 there is also possible (Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000). Chaetomymar kusnezovi Ogloblin, 1946 Chaetomymar kusnezovi Ogloblin, 1946: 277 (holotype - ♀ on slide, Nikol'sk Us surijskii (now Ussurijsk), Primorskii krai, Russia, [MLPA], examined). Chaetomymar kusnezovi: Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000: 613, ♀ (key). MATERIAL. Russia: Primorskii krai, Gornotayozhnoye, M. V. Michailovskaya, 21-31.VII 2000, 1 ♀ [UCRC]. DISTRIBUTION. Russia (Primorskii krai). COMMENTS. Ch. kusnezovi is known only from the female sex. Despite the recent intensive collecting in Gornotayozhnoye (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy, 2001), which is about 18 km from the type locality, only one specimen of C. kusnezovi was found, a female captured by a Malaise trap. We decided to mount this valuable specimen on a point because the only other known specimen of this species, the holotype, is on a slide and is uncleared. Host associations of this species are unknown. Genus Himopolynema Taguchi, 1977 Himopolynema Taguchi, 1977: 137. Type species: Himopolynema hishimonus Taguchi, 1977, Ayabe, Kyoto Prefecture, Japan, by original designation. Himopolynema: Hayat & Anis, 1999: 16, 18; Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000: 614. COMMENTS. The original, very brief diagnosis of Himopolynema by Taguchi (1977) was complemented recently by Hayat & Anis (1999). The genus is still not well defined at present but its species are relatively easy to recognize by a combination of the following morphological characters (in addition to the features mentioned in the original description): color mostly dark brown or black; face with a pit next to each torulus, on the line between them; prosternum «closed» by propleura anteriorly; frenal line of scutellum without a row of foveae (with the exception of one undes- cribed species from Papua New Guinea); propodeum not in the same plane with mesoscutum and scutellum but often at almost a right angle to them; marginal vein of the forewing usually with one (distal) dorsal macrochaeta, what is probably the basal macrochaeta is attached to the margin of the wing membrane anterior of the marginal vein, almost touching it (Fig. 3); petiole attached to the gastral tergum posteriorly. Himopolynema appears to be most closely related to the New World genus Platyfrons Yoshimoto, 1990. Known host records are from Cicadellidae (Taguchi, 1977) and also from Ma- chaerotidae (S. V. Triapitsyn, unpublished data). A key to the two species that are known so far from the Palaearctic region is presented below. Because H. parviscutum Taguchi, 1977 is known from males only, 3 Figs. 1–6. Himopolynema spp.: 1-5) H. ?parviscutum Taguchi, ♂ (Gornotayozhnoye, Pri- morskii krai, Russia): 1) antenna, 2) forewing, 3) marginal vein of forewing, 4) propodeum, 5) genitalia; 6, 7) H. aequum (Girault), ♀ (Queensland, Australia): 6) antenna, 7) propodeum. Scale bars = 0.1 mm. this key is based on the configuration of the carinae on the propodeum (assuming that there is no sexual dimorphism in the propodeal characters), following the key by Taguchi (1977), with significant modifications. Key to the described Palaearctic species 1. Median carinae on propodeum widely separated from each other medially (Fig. 4) . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . H. ?parviscutum – Median carinae on propodeum parallel and close to each other posteriorly, diverging anteriorly and forming a "Y". ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . H. hishimonus 4 Himopolynema ?parviscutum Taguchi, 1977 Figs 1-5 Himopolynema parviscutum Taguchi, 1977: 140 (holotype – ♂ [?lost], Ronshung Spa, Taiwan, not examined). MATERIAL. Russia: Primorskii krai, Gornotayozhnoye, M. V. Michailov- skaya: 1-2.VIII 1999, 1 ♂; 5-11.VIII 1999, 1 ♂; 7-9.VIII 2000, 1 ♂ [UCRC]. DISTRIBUTION. *Russia (Primorskii krai); China (Taiwan). COMMENTS. This species was described from two male specimens from Taiwan, the holotype and the paratype. Because the Taguchi collection of Mymaridae is apparently lost, comparison of our material from Gornotayozhnoye with the type specimens of H. parviscutum is not possible. The tentative identification was made based on Taguchi's key as well as his description and illustrations of H. parviscutum. The antenna (Fig. 1) is typical for Himopolynema. The forewing (Fig. 2) in the Russian specimens is slightly wider (length/width ratio 3.3:1) than in the specimen measured by Taguchi (1977) (length/width ratio 3.7:1). The male genitalia (Fig. 5) are very similar in shape and structure to those in Polynema s. str. Himopolynema hishimonus Taguchi, 1977 Himopolynema hishimonus Taguchi, 1977: 137 (holotype – ♀ [?lost], Ayabe, Kyoto Prefecture, Japan, not examined). Himopolynema hishimonus: Hayat & Anis, 1999: 20; Hayat & Singh, 2001: 97. MATERIAL. Japan: 3 ♀ on slides, labeled: "ex. overwintering eggs Hishimo- nus sellatus Uhler on Mulberry #B, Fukuoka, Japan, ?Sept. 1967, K. Yasumatsu" (misidentified as Chaetomymar sp. by R. L. Doutt) [EMEC, UCRC]. DISTRIBUTION. Japan (Honshu, Kyushu), China (Taiwan), India (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, West Bengal). COMMENTS. This species was described from a series of females reared in Japan from eggs of the leafhopper Hishimonus sellatus (Uhler, 1896) and one male from Taiwan. Our identification of the specimens mentioned above, reared in Japan from the same host, is based on the original description and illustrations of H. hishimonus (Taguchi, 1977). Hayat & Anis (1999) and Hayat & Singh (2001) recorded this species from India. Himopolynema aequum (Girault, 1920), comb. n. Figs 6, 7 Polynema aequum Girault, 1920: 96 (holotype - ♀ on slide, Nelson (= Gordonvale), Queensland, Australia, [QMBA], examined). Polynema aequum: New, 1976: 2; Dahms, 1983: 19. MATERIAL. Also examined and measured was the non-type female on slide [QMBA], mentioned by Dahms (1983). The holotype was measured by New (1976), except for the head, antennae, and gaster that are missing. The below redescription of 5 this species is based mainly on the non-type female because it is more complete, although bases of both forewings are not clearly visible. Therefore, forewing and hind wing length/width ratios are calculated from the corresponding measurements of the holotype taken by New (1976). REDESCRIPTION. FEMALE. Color. Dark brown except pedicel, funicle, meta- trochanter, bases of femora, apices of pro- and metatibiae, 3 basal tarsomeres of all legs, and petiole light brown. Head. As wide as high, about as wide as mesosoma, round in frontal view. Torulus about at mid level of eye, very close to eye margin. Mandible tridentate. Antenna (Fig. 6) much shorter than body. Scape smooth, without cross-ridges; all funicle segments short, shorter than pedicel (second segment the longest), and without longitudinal sensilla; clava large, long, with 4 visible longitudinal sensilla but their number is likely greater (6 or 7, as in other species of Himopolynema). Mesosoma. Pronotum undivided, with about 9-10 gross, blunt setae on or close to anterior margin; mesoscutum smooth, longer than scutellum; scutellum smooth, transverse; axilla with a strong, blunt seta reaching posterior margin of scutellum; propodeum (Fig. 7) with well-developed, U-shaped submedian carinae connected anteriorly. Wings. Forewing hyaline, 5.3 x as long as wide, as illustrated by New (1976) who, however, drew the marginal vein and the setation on the base of forewing incorrectly (p. 57, figs. 88, 89); in fact, they are very similar to those of H. ?parvis- cutum (Figs. 2, 3). Longest marginal cilia slightly longer than maximum width of forewing in holotype, almost equal in non-type specimen. Hind wing length/width ratio 32:1. Metasoma. Petiole 2.5 x as long as wide, with fine cross-ridges. Ovipositor occupying about 4/5 length of gaster, slightly exserted beyond its apex (ratio of total ovipositor length to length of its exserted part 12:1). Measurements (n=1): Body (without head): 738; head (width): 208; mesosoma: 357; pronotum: 44; mesoscutum: 117/194; scutellum: 73/117; propodeum: 73; petiole: 80/32; gaster: 347; ovipositor: 339. Antenna: scape (including radicle): 80; pedicel: 56; F1: 31; F2: 38; F3: 31; F4: 22; F5: 25; F6: 26; clava: 146. Forewing (width): 146; longest fringe cilia: 145. Legs (given as coxa, femur, tibia, tarsus): fore: 73, 164, 146, 175; middle: 62, 153, 193, 201; hind: 73, 179, 226, 197. DIAGNOSIS. This species differs from the other two described species of Himo- polynema with the median carinae widely separated medially, H. parviscutum and H. taiwanum Taguchi, 1977, by lacking the carinae along the anterior margin of the propodeum (as shown in Fig. 4). It differs from H. robustum (Sveum, 1982) in the shape and chaetotaxy of the forewing; the configuration of the propodeal carinae in H. robustum: is unknown because the only known specimen of that species, the holotype female, is mounted laterally and is illustrated accordingly (Sveum, 1982). The single female known of H. longiclavatum Hayat et Anis, 1999, the holotype from Kerala, India, is also mounted laterally; in its diagnosis, Hayat & Anis (1999) state that it may have a broad propodeal canal (i.e., widely 6 separated median carinae). If that is the case, H. longiclavatum may turn out to be very closely related to H. aequum, from which it differs by having the scape of the female antenna markedly striate, as illustrated by Hayat & Anis (1999, Fig. 8); the female scape is smooth in H. aequum. DISTRIBUTION. Australia (Queensland). COMMENTS. The above new combination adds one more taxon to the six species of Himopolynema that are presently recognized (Hayat & Anis, 1999). Because three of these species are based on males only (Taguchi, 1977) and the other described species of Himopolynema are based on females, synonyms among them are possible; if H. aequum were involved in any such case, it would have a priority as the oldest name. It is quite likely that H. aequum may occur outside of Queensland, Australia, where elements of the Oriental mymarid fauna are not uncommon. Genus Stephanodes Enock, 1909 Stephanodes Enock, 1909: 457. Type species: Stephanodes elegans Enock, 1909, Woking, England, by monotypy. Stephanodes: Annecke & Doutt, 1961: 34; Viggiani, 1973: 277; Schauff, 1984: 52; Huber & Fidalgo, 1997: 34 (list of synonyms and world revision); Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000: 614. COMMENTS. This genus was not long ago revised by Huber & Fidalgo (1997); their key and excellent illustrations were used to determine the two species from Russia included in this review. Reliable host records of Stephanodes are from Nabidae (Huber & Fidalgo, 1997). In the Palaearctic region, Stephanodes is represented by two closely related species that may be recognized using the key by Triapitsyn & Huber (2000). Recognition of Stephanodes species from dry-mounted specimens is generally very difficult, and almost impossible in the areas where more than one species may be present. Because all previous keys are based on the female sex, at present males of Stepha- nodes may be positively identified only by associating them with the females of the same species. To facilitate recognition of the two Palaearctic species treated below, we provide illustrations of the male genitalia of both as there are slight differences between them in the length and shape of the phallobase, which is relatively longer in S. reduvioli (Figs. 8, 9) and shorter in S. similis (Fig. 10), and also the aedeagus is relatively narrower in the middle in S. reduvioli. The overall structure of the male genitalia of Stephanodes appears to be more related to that of Acmopolynema than to that of Polynema Haliday, 1833. Stephanodes reduvioli (Perkins, 1905) Figs 8, 9 Polynema reduvioli Perkins, 1905: 196 (lectotype – ♀, Hawaiian Islands [The Natural History Museum, London, England, UK], not examined]. Stephanodes reduvioli: Huber & Fidalgo, 1997: 41; Beardsley & Huber, 2000: 17; Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000: 614. 7 MATERIAL. Russia: Primorskii krai, Gornotayozhnoye, M. V. Michailovs- kaya: 27.V 1999, 1♀; 20-30.VI 1999, 1♀; 28.VI-4.VII 1999, 1♀; 21-22.VII 1999, 3♀; 17-18.VIII 1999, 2♂; 20-28.VIII 1999, 1♂; 10-15.IX 1999, 1♀; IX 1999, 1♀; 2-4.V 2000, 1♀; 15-31.V 2000, 1♀; V 2000, 1♀; 11-12.VI 2000, 1♀; 22-30.VI 2000, 1♂; 4-5.VII 2000, 3♀; 1-10.VII 2000, 3♀; 5-6.VIII 2000, 1♂; 7-9.VIII 2000, 1♀; VIII 2000, 1♀ [IBPV, UCRC, ZIN]. Georgia: Adzharia, Khulo, 31.VII 1953, V. A. Trjapi- tzin, 1♀ [ZIN]. Kyrgyzstan: Issyk- Kul, S Shore Issyk-Kul Lake, 10 km E Kadzhi-Saj, 1675 m, 5.IX 1998, C. H. Dietrich, 1♀. Australia: Australian Capital Territory, Canberra, 11.I 1999, J. M. Heraty, 4♂. New South Wales, 10 km W Mellinga, 13.I 1999, J. M. Heraty, 4♀, 2♂. Queensland: Gatton, 4.XII 1979, G. Gordh, 2♀. Indooroopilly, 21.X 1979, G. Gordh, 1♀. Mundubbera, 17.III 2000, C. Freebairn, 2♀. Hawaiian Islands: Hawaii I., 0.5 mi. SE Kahola, 6.VII 1989, H. E. Andersen, 3♀, 1♂ [UCRC]. DISTRIBUTION. *Russia (Pri- morskii krai); Australia, China Figs. 8-10. Stephanodes spp., ♂ genitalia: 8, 9) S. reduvioli (Perkins): 8) dorsal view (Taiwan), Ecuador, Fiji, French (Gornotayozhnoye, Primorskii krai, Russia), 9) Polynesia, *Georgia, Hawaiian lateral view (10 km W Mellinga, New South Islands, India, Iran, Japan (Honshu, Wales, Australia); 10) S. similis (Foerster) Kyushu, Shikoku), *Kyrgyzstan, (Mamontovka, Moscow region, Russia), dorsal New Zealand, Northern Mariana view. Scale bars = 0.1 mm. Islands, Peru, USA (California). COMMENTS. This species was redescribed and illustrated by Huber & Fidalgo (1997) who also listed its synonyms and the detailed distribution records. Beardsley & Huber (2000) provided references subsequent to the original description as well as information on the known hosts of S. reduvioli. We followed the diagnosis by Huber & Fidalgo (1997) in identifying the females from Georgia and Kyrgyzstan as S. reduvioli because of the presence of a sickle-shaped sensillum on F3 on both antennae. However, at least with the specimen from Issyk-Kul Lake shore, such species assignment is tentative as all other female specimens in Kyrgyzstan that we slide-mounted lack such a sensillum on F3 on both antennae and thus belong to S. similis. 8 Stephanodes similis (Foerster, 1847) Fig. 10 Polynema similis Foerster, 1847: 218 (?lectotype - ♀, Aachen, Germany, [Naturhisto- risches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria], not examined). Stephanodes similis: Huber & Fidalgo, 1997: 37; Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000: 614. MATERIAL. Russia: Leningrad region, 69-km Railroad Station near Sosnovo, 25-26.VIII 1985, V. A. Trjapitzin, 1♀ [ZIN]. Moscow region, Mamontovka, 10-20. VIII 2000, E. Y. Shouvakhina, 2♂ [UCRC]. Samara region, Zhigulevskiy zapovednik: Yagodnaya Polyana, 13.VII 1985, V. A. Trjapitzin, E. Y. Shouvakhina, 1♂; Bakhilova Polyana, 17.VII 1985, V. A. Trjapitzin 1♀ [ZIN]. Kyrgyzstan: Chuy, Suusamyr Valley, 2291 m, 14.VI 1999, C. H. Dietrich, 1♀. Dzhalal-Abad, 18 km WSW Kazarman, 1550 m, 15.VII 2000, C. H. Dietrich, 1♀. Osh: Gultcha Ravine, 50 km SSW Gultcha, 2530 m, 7.VII 2000, C. H. Dietrich, 1♀; Karakuldzha, Lajsu Ravine, 1815 m, 25.VI 1999, C. H. Dietrich, 1♀. Talas, near Boo-Terek, 1000 m, 15.VI 1999, C. H. Dietrich, 1♀. Turkmenistan: Ashgabat region, Enev, 14.VII 1993, S. N. Myartseva, 1♀, 1♂. Cyprus: Archangelos, 7.XI 1967, G. P. Georghiou, 1♀; Saitta, 1.XI 1967, G. P. Georghiou, 1♀. Germany: Eisenach, 950 m, 1.VII 1990, H. E. Andersen, 1♀. Paraguay: San Pedro, Cororo, Río Ypane, 1-4.XII 1983, M. Wasbauer, 1♀ [UCRC]. DISTRIBUTION. *Russia (European part); Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cape Verde Islands, Czech Republic, *Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, *Kyrgyzstan, *Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, *Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales), USA (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin). COMMENTS. This widespread species was redescribed and illustrated by Huber & Fidalgo (1997) who also discussed its long nomenclatural history and provided a list of synonyms. The above new country records complement those listed by Huber & Fidalgo (1997), one of which (a male collected by A. A. Ogloblin in Podkarpat'ie, p. 41) must be corrected: it is actually from Ukraine, not from Russia. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr. Marina V. Michailovskaya (Mountain-Taiga Station, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Gornotayozhnoye, Primorskii krai, Russia) and Mrs. Elisaveta Y. Shouvakhina (Russian Entomological Society, St. Petersburg, Russia) for collecting the material, Dr. Chris Burwell (QMBA), Dr. Patricio Fidalgo (CONICET, San Miguel de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina), Prof. Vladimir A. Trjapitzin (ZIN), and Dr. Robert Zuparko (EMEC) for loans of specimens, and Dr. Brian V. Brown (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California, USA) for assistance in digitizing the illustrations. 9 REFERENCES Annecke, D. P. & Doutt, R. L. 1961. The genera of the Mymaridae Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea.– Entomological Memoirs (Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Republic of South Africa) 5: 1-71. Beardsley, J. W. & Huber, J. T. 2000. Key to genera of Mymaridae in the Hawaiian Islands, with notes on some of the species (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). – Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 34: 1-22. Berezovskiy, V. V. & Triapitsyn, S. V. 2001. Review of the Mymaridae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) of Primorskii krai: genus Acmopolynema Ogloblin. – Far Eastern Ento- mologist 105: 1-11. Dahms, E. C. 1983. A checklist of the types of Australian Hymenoptera described by Alexandre Arsene Girault: II. Preamble and Chalcidoidea species A-E with advisory notes. – Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 21 (1): 1-255. Enock, F. 1909. XI. New genera of British Mymaridae (Haliday). – The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 4 (1909-1910): 449-459, plates XII-XV. Foerster, A. 1847. Ueber die Familie der Mymariden. – Linnaea Entomologica 2: 195-233. Gibson, G. A. P. 1997. Chapter 2. Morphology and terminology. – In: Gibson G.A.P., Huber J.T., Woolley J. B. (Eds.). Annotated keys to the genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Ottawa: NRC Research Press: 16-44. Girault, A. A. 1920. New genera and species of Australian Mymaridae (Hymenoptera). – Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus 8: 96-100. Hayat, M. & Anis, S. B. 1999. New record of two genera Ptilomymar and Himopolynema from India, with descriptions of two new species (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae). – Shashpa 6 (1): 15-22. Hayat, M. & Singh, S. 2001. Description of a new species of Polynema from India with further records of Himopolynema hishimonus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). – Shashpa 8 (2): 95-97. Huber, J. T. 1986. Systematics, biology, and hosts of the Mymaridae and Mymarommatidae (Insecta: Hymenoptera): 1758-1984. – Entomography 4: 185-243. Huber, J. T. & Fidalgo, P. 1997 (1998). Review of the genus Stephanodes (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). – Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 128: 27-63. New, T. R. 1976. The Australian species of Polynema Haliday, s.l., (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) described by A. A. Girault. – Australian Journal of Zoology, Supplementary Series 42: 1-65. Ogloblin, A. A. 1946. Description of new genera and species of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). – Iowa State College Journal of Science 20 (3): 277-295. Perkins, R. C. L. 1905. Leafhoppers and their natural enemies. VI. (Mymaridae, Platygaste- ridae). – Bulletin of the Experiment Station of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, Entomological Series 1 (6): 187-205. Schauff, M. E. 1984. The Holarctic genera of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). – Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington 12: 1- 67. Sveum, P. 1982. Taxonomical studies on Mymaridae (Hymenoptera) from Malaysia. – Entomologica Scandinavica 13: 81-87. Taguchi, H. 1977. A new genus belonging to the tribe Mymarini from Japan, Taiwan and Malaysia (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). – Transactions of the Shikoku Entomological Society 13 (3-4): 137-142. 10