Wasp, or the “yySRNP-xxxxx” voucher codes of the caterpillar. If a DHJPARxxxxxxx voucher code is cited, it is for a single specimen. If a yy-SRNP-xxxxx voucher code is cited, it is for 1 to N specimens reared from a single caterpillar and which are presumed siblings, but have not been individually vouchered, whether point-mounted or remaining preserved in buy LLY-507 ethanol. All holotypes bear a DHJPARxxxxxxx unique voucher code (and if there was more than one specimen in that rearing from that one caterpillar, all of them will bear the same yy-SRNP-xxxxx code). In this paper we refer to these voucher codes as “ACG database codes” when providing specimen details in the taxonomic treatment of species. In the case that a set of specimens reared from one individual caterpillar was not DNA barcoded, the vial containing those specimens has only the yy-SRNP-xxxxx code, while an individual wasp that has been barcoded from that sample bears both the SRNP code and the DHJPAR code. Each barcoded specimen also has an accession code from the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD) and GenBank. Type material for most of the 19 previously described Mesoamerican species was borrowed for study. However, no molecular data is available for any of those holotypes. It will not be surprising if some of their names are found to encompass complexes of species. Some members of such complexes may be some of the ACG species described here, but it would be premature to even speculate about that. The following acronyms are used: BMNH CNC INHS INBio NMNH The Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Canada Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois, United States Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, United StatesMorphological terms and measurements of structures are mostly as used by Mason (1981), Huber and Sharkey (1993), Sharkey and Wharton (1997), Whitfield (1997), and Valerio et al. (2009). However, we also incorporated a recent, comprehensive morphological treatment of Opiinae (Braconidae) by Karlsson and Ronquist (2012), which is part of a wider effort to standardize and homologize morphological terms and definitions across the order Hymenoptera, the Hymenoptera Anatomy OntologyReview of Apanteles sensu stricto (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae)…(HAO) project (Yoder et al. 2010, Seltmann et al. 2012). As a result of adopting most HAO preferred terms (but see exceptions below), some of the morphological terms we apply have never been used in taxonomic papers treating Microgastrinae. Karlsson and Ronquist (2012) named and numbered the first metasomal segment as “abdominal tergum/BEZ235 site sternum 2″. Usually, that segment has been called (and numbered) “metasomal tergum/sternum 1” (Mason 1981, Whitfield 1997, 2006). Though both approaches are correct, we use “metasomal tergum/sternum 1” because we consider it is clearer and facilitates the counting of metasomal segments (as in Fig. 207). The same applies to its associate sclerites (mediotergites and laterotergites). We considered that the “preferred label” (i.e., name) provided in the HAO website for “mesoscutellar arm” was better than the corresponding term, “posterior bar of mesoscutellum”, used by Karlsson and Ronquist (2012). The terms “mesoscutellar trough” and “mesoscutellar arm” (Fig. 206) have been used extensively in.Wasp, or the “yySRNP-xxxxx” voucher codes of the caterpillar. If a DHJPARxxxxxxx voucher code is cited, it is for a single specimen. If a yy-SRNP-xxxxx voucher code is cited, it is for 1 to N specimens reared from a single caterpillar and which are presumed siblings, but have not been individually vouchered, whether point-mounted or remaining preserved in ethanol. All holotypes bear a DHJPARxxxxxxx unique voucher code (and if there was more than one specimen in that rearing from that one caterpillar, all of them will bear the same yy-SRNP-xxxxx code). In this paper we refer to these voucher codes as “ACG database codes” when providing specimen details in the taxonomic treatment of species. In the case that a set of specimens reared from one individual caterpillar was not DNA barcoded, the vial containing those specimens has only the yy-SRNP-xxxxx code, while an individual wasp that has been barcoded from that sample bears both the SRNP code and the DHJPAR code. Each barcoded specimen also has an accession code from the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD) and GenBank. Type material for most of the 19 previously described Mesoamerican species was borrowed for study. However, no molecular data is available for any of those holotypes. It will not be surprising if some of their names are found to encompass complexes of species. Some members of such complexes may be some of the ACG species described here, but it would be premature to even speculate about that. The following acronyms are used: BMNH CNC INHS INBio NMNH The Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Canada Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois, United States Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, United StatesMorphological terms and measurements of structures are mostly as used by Mason (1981), Huber and Sharkey (1993), Sharkey and Wharton (1997), Whitfield (1997), and Valerio et al. (2009). However, we also incorporated a recent, comprehensive morphological treatment of Opiinae (Braconidae) by Karlsson and Ronquist (2012), which is part of a wider effort to standardize and homologize morphological terms and definitions across the order Hymenoptera, the Hymenoptera Anatomy OntologyReview of Apanteles sensu stricto (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae)…(HAO) project (Yoder et al. 2010, Seltmann et al. 2012). As a result of adopting most HAO preferred terms (but see exceptions below), some of the morphological terms we apply have never been used in taxonomic papers treating Microgastrinae. Karlsson and Ronquist (2012) named and numbered the first metasomal segment as “abdominal tergum/sternum 2”. Usually, that segment has been called (and numbered) “metasomal tergum/sternum 1” (Mason 1981, Whitfield 1997, 2006). Though both approaches are correct, we use “metasomal tergum/sternum 1” because we consider it is clearer and facilitates the counting of metasomal segments (as in Fig. 207). The same applies to its associate sclerites (mediotergites and laterotergites). We considered that the “preferred label” (i.e., name) provided in the HAO website for “mesoscutellar arm” was better than the corresponding term, “posterior bar of mesoscutellum”, used by Karlsson and Ronquist (2012). The terms “mesoscutellar trough” and “mesoscutellar arm” (Fig. 206) have been used extensively in.