Apanteles Foerster 1862
Creators: name: Liu, Zhen
name: He, Jun-Hua
name: Chen, Xue-Xin
name: Gupta, Ankita
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Braconidae
Apanteles

description: Key to species of ater- group of genus Apanteles Foerster from China   
 1. Propodeum at most with a weakly defined areola and never with a costula (Fig. 87d); spiracle not entirely or in part enclosed by keels; propodeum to sides of areola with dull microsculpture or nearly smooth, or, if rather strongly rugose, then metacarp of fore wing hardly 1.5× longer than its distance from apex of marginal cell; small; dark-legged, with hind tibia deeply infuscate to blackish (Fig. 89a); tergites posterior to T2 always with a dull sheen............  2 (eublemmae -subgroup)    
 - Propodeum usually with a distinct areola and costulae (Fig. 8b), sometimes, costulae absent; spiracle, frequently, only enclosed by posterior keels; if costula along with forks virtually absent, then surface of propodeum with much coarser rugosity; metacarp usually much longer than its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 2b)............................. 12   
 2 (1). Metacarp short, at most as long as pterostigma and no more than 2.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (e.g. Fig. 89g)......................................................................................... 3   
 - Metacarp long, usually distinctly longer than pterostigma and at least 3.0× as long as distance from apex of marginal cell (e.g. Fig. 87a)..................................................................................... 6   
 3 (2). Mesoscutum with characteristic dense, silvery pubescence which on posterior half becomes longer and silky (e.g. Fig. 89e)................................................................................................. 4   
 - Pubescence of mesoscutum shorter, of regular appearance (Fig. 93d).......................................... 5   
 4 (3). Propodeum 4.0× wider than long (Fig. 89c); penultimate flagellomere almost cubic; scutellum narrower posteriorly (Fig. 89e)................................................................  A. cavitergita Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Propodeum 6.0× wider than long (Fig. 97k); penultimate flagellomere 1.4× longer than wide (Fig. 97d); scutellum wider posteriorly (Fig. 97h).......................................................  A. setosus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 5 (3). Vein cu-a of hind wing abruptly strongly curved at posterior half, distinctly longer than 1-1A (Fig. 92h); pterostigma small, 3.2× as long as its widest part (Fig. 92h); head less transverse in dorsal view (Fig. 92d).................................................................................................  A. lineatella Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Vein cu-a of hind wing slightly curved, not longer than 1-1A; pterostigma large, 2.5× as long as its widest part (Fig. 93b); head more transverse in dorsal view (Fig. 93e).............................  A. palliditegula Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 6(2). Ovipositor sheath shorter than length of hind tibia (e.g. Fig. 93a)............................................. 7   
 - Ovipositor sheath much longer, at least as long as length of hind tibia (e.g. Fig. 95d)............................. 9   
 7(6). T1 parallel-sided, less than 2.0× longer than hind width (e.g. Fig. 93f); vein r of fore wing arising from middle of pterostigma (e.g. Fig. 93b)..................................................................................... 8   
 - T1 narrow, strongly converged from base, 3.0× longer than hind width (Fig. 87g); vein r of fore wing arising from apex side of pterostigma (Fig. 87a)...................................................  A. alticella Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 8(7). Head transverse in dorsal view, 2.2× as wide as long (Fig. 93e); antenna distinctly shorter than body length (0.8×), penultimate flagellomere cubic to slightly transverse; vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part strongly concave (Fig. 93a)......................................................................  A. longiala Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Head less transverse in dorsal view, nearly 1.9× as wide as long (Fig. 91d); antenna weakly longer than body length, penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide; vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part straight (Fig. 91f)..............................................................................  A. impunctus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 9(6). Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus just touching posterior ocelli; first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.6× wider than high (Fig. 95b)........................................................................................ 10   
 - Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus weakly transecting posterior ocelli; first submarginal cell of hind wing subquadrate to quadrate......................................................................................... 11   
 10(9). Vein 1-R1 indistinctly shorter than pterostigma, 3.6× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 95a).....; T2 4.3× wider than long in the middle, weakly curved into T3 apically (Fig. 95e); vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part straight (Fig. 95b)....................................................  A. rectala Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Vein 1-R1 weakly longer than pterostigma, 4.3× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 88d); T2 2.4× wider than long in the middle, straight apically (Fig. 88e); vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part slightly concave (Fig. 88g)..............................................................  A. aphanoiugum Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 11(9). Areola on propodeum open anteriorly (Fig. 90a); basal width 2.0× wider than apical width (Fig. 90b); mesopleuron shiny, anterior parts with shallow, indefinite punctures...................................  A. heichinensis Sonan, 1942    
 - Areola on propodeum closed anteriorly (Fig. 96g); basal width 1.4× wider than apical width (Fig. 96g); mesopleuron slightly shiny, anterior and upper parts dull with heavy, dense punctures (Fig. 96h)..........  A. rhombos Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 12(1). Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part usually straight or slightly convex and with hairs.................. 13   
 - Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part usually concave, sometimes straight, and hairless................. 19   
 13(12). Metacarp short, 2.0–2.5× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Figs 10e, 104a 2); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus not touching posterior ocelli (Fig. 10b); mesonotum with sparse, deep punctures, shiny along the middle line, posterior part of imaginary notaulic courses without longitudinal striations (Fig. 10c)..............  A. argiope Nixon, 1965    
 - Metacarp longer, at least 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 35d); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus just touching posterior ocelli (Fig. 35g); mesonotum with heavy punctures, posterior part of imaginary notaulic courses with longitudinal striations.......................................................................... 14   
 14(13). Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part with a series of hairs (Fig. 35c); mesonotum with coarse strong punctures, obviously strongly aciculate between punctures (Fig. 35e).................................  A. dryas Nixon, 1965    
 - Vannal lobe of hind wing beyond its widest part at most with some hardly invisible hairs (Fig. 74g); mesonotum with shallow punctures, without rugosity between punctures except punctures on the notaulic courses (Fig. 84e).................. 15   
 15(14). Hind coxa dark brown to black (Fig. 84c).............................................................. 16   
 - Hind coxa mostly or entirely yellow (Fig. 28h).......................................................... 17   
 16(15). Mesopleuron in oblique direction sufficiently hollowed out to form a discrete, linear sternaulus (Fig. 84c); mesoscutum shiny with a heavy, discrete punctation (Fig. 84e); eyes larger, closer on face (Fig. 84i)........  A. usipetes Nixon, 1965    
 - Mesopleuron in oblique direction merely hollowed out in a manner common to most species (Fig. 74d); posterior end of notaulic courses indicated by a zone of shiny striate-punctation on mesoscutum (Fig. 74h); eyes smaller, widely separated on face (Fig. 74e)...............................................................  A. saravus Nixon, 1965    
 17(15). Body yellowish brown; propodeum with complete areola, costula present, posterio-lateral field distinctly transverse.................................................................................  A. bakeri Wilkinson, 1932    
 - Body at most yellowish on basal tergites; propodeum incomplete areolate, costula absent or indistinct.............. 18   
 18(17). Mesonotum dull with strong, dense punctures, coarser at posterior end of notaulic courses (Fig. 28g); eyes (in dorsal view) about 2.0× longer than temple (Fig. 28d)......................................  A. crassus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Mesonotum shiny with sparse punctures, impunctate medio-apically (Fig. 4h); eyes (in dorsal view) about 3.0× longer than temple (Fig. 4d).........................................................  A. ambultor Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 19(12). Ovipositor sheath longer than 1.6× length of hind tibia.................................................... 20   
 - Ovipositor sheath shorter than 1.5× length of hind tibia................................................... 24   
 20(19). Propodeum without costula.......................................................................... 21   
 - Propodeum with more or less obvious costula........................................................... 22   
 21(20). Hind femur yellow (Fig. 15a); propodeum without median keel and areola incomplete (Fig. 15e)............................................................................................  A. bialtus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Hind femur brown to black (Fig. 41a); propodeum with a median keel reaching to nearly middle part and areola complete but rather small (Fig. 41d)..................................................  A. fundum Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 22(20). Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus far beyond posterior ocelli............................................. 23   
 - Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus virtually transecting posterior ocelli (Fig. 5c).....  A. amotus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 23(22). Disc of mesonotum without longitudinal striations at its posterior part (Fig. 20c); T2 3.8× wider than long in the middle (Fig. 20b); hind femur dark brown (Fig. 20a)......................................  A. cannabis Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Disc of mesonotum with distinct longitudinal striations at its posterior part; T2 1.8× wider than long in the middle; hind femur yellow..........................................................................................................................................................  A. petilicaudium Song & Chen, 2002    
 24(19). T1 weakly to distinctly widening posteriorly............................................................ 25   
 - T1 parallel-sided, or slightly converged towards apex, or distinctly wedge-shaped............................... 27   
 25(24). Postero-lateral areas of propodeum bounded externally by a keel, not always well defined, lying parallel to lateral propodeal keel and forming a narrow, longitudinal zone with it (Fig. 21d); pterostigma decidedly short, broad, 2.3× as long as its widest part (Fig. 21h)..................................................................  A. carpatus (Say, 1836)    
 - Postero-lateral areas of propodeum not bounded externally by a keel (Fig. 36g); pterostigma long, narrow, 2.8–3.2× as long as its widest part (Fig. 36b).......................................................................... 26   
 26(25). T2 nearly as long as T3 (Fig. 36g); hind coxa and femur bright yellow (Fig. 36g); ovipositor sheath 0.7× longer than length of hind tibia (Fig. 36h)....................................................  A. expansus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - T2 distinctly shorter, 0.6× length of T3 (Fig. 18h); hind coxa and femur bright brown to black (Fig. 18h); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia or slightly longer (Fig. 18f)............................  A. brunnistigma Abdinbekova, 1969    
 27(24). Ovipositor sheath not or hardly longer than hind basitarsus................................................. 28   
 - Ovipositor sheath at least distinctly longer than hind basitarsus, usually much longer............................ 35   
 28(27). Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 29   
 - Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 31   
 29(28). Vein 1-CU1 of fore wing forming virtually a straight line with vein cu-a (Fig. 39h); temple very coarsely rugose (Fig. 39d); scutellum with large punctures along sides (Fig. 39b); T1 short, more or less parallel-sided (Figs. 39f, 104j).............................................................................................  A. folia Nixon, 1965    
 - Vein 1-CU1 of fore wing forming an angle with vein cu-a at their junction (Fig. 31b)............................ 30   
 30(29). Hind tarsomere 4 distinctly shorter than 5; metacarp rather short, about 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Figs. 31b, 104g 1); hind wing broad, length of 1-M distinctly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and apex of vannal lobe (Fig. 31c)..........................................................  A. demades Nixon, 1965    
 - Hind tarsomere 4 hardly shorter than 5; metacarp fully 6.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 75a); hind wing narrower, length of 1-M slightly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and apex of vannal lobe (Fig. 75i).............................................................................  A. sartamus Nixon, 1965    
 31(28). T1 abruptly narrowed from turned-over part towards apex (Fig. 34g)......................................... 32   
 - T1 only slightly narrowed posteriorly (Fig. 66f)......................................................... 34   
 32(31). Turned-over part of T1 smooth, highly polished (Fig. 42i); scutellum shiny, polished, at most with indefinite punctures laterally (Fig. 42g).................................................................................... 33   
 - Turned-over part of T1 not shiny, strongly rugose entirely (Fig. 34g); scutellum slightly shiny with shallow punctures entirely (Fig. 34f)..........................................................  A. distributa Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 33(32). Ovipositor sheath hardly 0.8× as long as length of hind basitarsus (Fig. 42e); vein 1-R1 2.8× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 42a); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus virtually transecting posterior ocelli (Fig. 42d)............................................................................  A. fuscidentalis Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Ovipositor sheath as long as length of hind basitarsus (Fig. 47a); vein 1-R1 4.6× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 47b); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus not touching posterior ocelli (Fig. 47f)......................................................................................................  A. javensis Rohwer, 1919    
 34(31). Head wider (1.1×) than mesoscutum; face rather transverse, 0.6× as high as wide (Fig. 66c); penultimate flagellomere subcubic..................................................................  A. plureseta Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Head narrower (0.9×) than mesoscutum; face less transverse, 0.8× as high as wide (Fig. 72d); penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide...........................................................  A. salsala Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 35(27). Ovipositor sheath much shorter than hind tibia.......................................................... 36   
 - Ovipositor sheath at least about 3/4 length of hind tibia................................................... 41   
 36(35). Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 37   
 - Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 40   
 37(36). Hind femur black (Fig. 52a); pterostigma with basal whitish spot (Fig. 52j); scutellum strongly rugose-punctate as mesonotum (Fig. 52e)...........................................................  A. longicoxa Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Hind femur yellow; pterostigma without basal whitish spot; scutellum at most shallowly punctate.................. 38   
 38(37). Most parts of metasoma, apical half of hind coxa, and scape with pedicel of antenna bright yellow (Fig. 37a); hind femur much thinner, 3.6× longer than wide (Fig. 37a); inner spurs of hind tibia long, 3/5 length of hind basitarsus................................................................................  A. flavibasalis Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Whole body brown to dark brown; hind femur thicker, at most 3.0× longer than wide; inner spurs of hind tibia shorter, 2/5 length of hind basitarsus............................................................................ 39   
 39(38). Disc of mesonotum with shallow punctures disappearing at large posterior part, interspaces not smaller than diameter of puncture (Fig. 59b); first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.5× wider than high (Fig. 59h); r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at junction (Fig. 59a).............................................  A. muscosalis Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Disc of mesonotum with heavy, coarse punctures, becoming coarser and confluent along notaulic courses and confluent to forming fine longitudinal striations at posterior part (Fig. 14d); first submarginal cell of hind wing nearly quadrate (Fig. 14e); r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction (Fig. 14a)...........................  A. bannaensis Song & Chen, 2001    
 40(36). T1 strongly constricted from base (Fig. 7f); face rugulose or striate-punctate (Fig. 7h); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus virtually transecting posterior ocelli (Fig. 7e)..................................  A. annosus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - T1 parallel-sided, slightly constricted at apical third (Fig. 6i); face finely punctate (Fig. 6c); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus not touching posterior ocelli (Fig. 6b).................................  A. angustus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 41(35). Basal several flagellomeres reddish yellow, elsewhere blackish brown (Fig. 71a)............................... 42   
 - Flagellomeres evenly black or brown.................................................................. 43   
 42(41). Vein r:2-SR = 1.7:1.5, indistinctly angled at junction (Fig. 71b); T2 nearly triangular (Fig. 71f); hind coxa, hind trochanter, and hind femur reddish yellow (Fig. 71a)...................................  A. raviantenna Chen & Song, 2004    
 - Vein r:2-SR = 1.9:1, distinctly angled at junction (Fig. 86b); T2 nearly rectangular (Fig. 86h); hind coxa blackish at basal 2/3, reddish yellow at apical 1/3 (Fig. 86a).......................................  A. wuyiensis Song & Chen, 2002    
 43(41). Pterostigma pallid with a darker border, or rarely, yellowish................................................ 44   
 - Pterostigma evenly brown or utmost with whitish basal spot................................................ 77   
 44(43). Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 45   
 - Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 60   
 45(44). Surface of propodeum with much coarser rugosity....................................................... 46   
 - Propodeum nearly smooth, or, with a dull microsculpture, or, at most weakly rugose............................ 48   
 46(45). T1 parallel-sided, never constricted apically (Fig. 77f); medial keel on propodeum distinct and long (Fig. 77f); inner margin of eyes distinctly converged towards apex (Fig. 77g).......................  A. semicarinatus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - T1 slightly to strongly constricted apically; medial keel on propodeum absent or shorter; inner margin of eyes parallel-sided or subparallel-sided................................................................................ 47   
 47(46). Areola on propodeum complete with a medial keel basally (Fig. 22c); mesonotum with heavy striate-punctation at posterior end of notaulic courses (Fig. 22h); vertex between eye and posterior ocellus dull with dense and strong puncture (Fig. 22d)........................................................................  A. carssus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Areola on propodeum incomplete and indefinite (Fig. 70d); mesonotum without rugosity and longitudinal striations at posterior end of notaulic courses (Fig. 70g); vertex between eye and posterior ocellus shiny with extremely shallow punctures (Fig. 70c).............................................................  A. radocoxa Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 48(45). T1 hardly narrowed at apex, parallel-sided or almost parallel-sided.......................................... 49   
 - T1 distinctly narrowed at apex....................................................................... 52   
 49(48). T2 not sharply angled laterally, angled at about 45 degrees; scutellum highly polished, more narrowed and conically raised apically.....................................................................  A. leptoura Cameron, 1909    
 - T2 very sharply angled laterally, angled at about 30 degrees; scutellum flattened and with vague punctation, less conically raised and less narrowed apically..................................................................... 50   
 50(49). Ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia; spines along upper part of outer side of hind tibia numerous, closer.............................................................................  A. tachardiae Cameron, 1913    
 - Ovipositor sheath not longer than hind tibia; spines along upper part of outer side of hind tibia fewer, sparser......... 51   
 51(50). Distance between posterior ocelli distinctly greater than distance between one of them and eye-margin.......................................................................................  A. machaeralis Wilkinson, 1928    
 - Distance between posterior ocelli shorter than distance between one of them and eye-margin (Fig. 16c)...........................................................................................  A. bisulcata Cameron, 1909    
 52(48). Each side of imaginary areola on propodeum polished, smooth, there being no trace of areola or keel behind spiracle.. 53   
 - Each side of areola on propodeum with rugosity at least in the place normally occupied by costula, there being at least parts a keel behind spiracle (Fig. 45d)..............................................  A. importunus Wilkinson, 1928    
 53(52). Ovipositor sheath about 1.5× longer than hind tibia....................................................... 54   
 - Ovipositor sheath at most 1.3× longer than hind tibia..................................................... 55   
 54(53). Mesoscutum distinctly transverse; penultimate flagellomere not or hardly longer than wide; T1 relatively shorter..................................................................................  A. angaleti Muesebeck, 1956    
 - Mesoscutum nearly as long as wide (Fig. 53g); penultimate flagellomere about 1.6× longer than wide; T1 much longer (Fig. 53f).................................................................  A. longidiscus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 55(53). T2 shorter than half length of T3 (Fig. 67h); tergites posterior to T2 matte; ovipositor sheath much wider (Fig. 67a)..........................................................................  A. prominens Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - T2 usually over half length of T3 (Fig. 40i); tergites posterior to T2 shiny; ovipositor sheath narrower (Fig. 9f)....... 56   
 56(55). T2 half length of T3 (Fig. 63h); propodeum densely, rather evenly rugose (Fig. 63c)............  A. oritias Nixon, 1965    
 - T2 distinctly over half length of T3; propodeum widely polished............................................ 57   
 57(56). Ovipositor sheath 0.8× as long as length of hind tibia (Fig. 40c); hind femur relatively thin, 3.4× longer than wide; penultimate flagellomere indistinctly longer than wide................................  A. fraxinus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Ovipositor sheath at least as long as length of hind tibia (Fig. 13a); hind femur relatively thick, at most 3.0× longer than wide (Fig. 13a); penultimate flagellomere distinctly (at least 1.4×) longer than wide................................. 58   
 58(57). Vein cu-a of hind wing slightly longer than 1-1A (Fig. 9g); sulcus between T2 and T3 indistinct (Fig. 9f); face more transverse (Fig. 9i)........................................................  A. aphanofossa Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Vein cu-a of hind wing shorter than 1-1A; sulcus between T2 and T3 distinct; face less transverse.................. 59   
 59(58). Penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide; mesonotum without punctures at apex, no any trace of rugosity between punctures at posterior end of notaulic courses (Fig. 49f); hind wing broad, length of 1-M distinctly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and apex of vannal lobe (Fig. 49c).................  A. lateroglabris Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Penultimate flagellomere 2.4× longer than wide; rugulose between punctures at posterior end of notaulic courses on mesonotum (Fig. 13f); hind wing less broad, length of 1-M indistinctly shorter than distance between its distal extremity and the apex of vannal lobe (Fig. 13h).........................................  A. attenuator Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 60(44). Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 61   
 - Hind femur dark brown to black...................................................................... 69   
 61(60). Body entirely red (Fig. 19a); ovipositor sheath 1.5× longer than length of hind tibia; ocelli larger (Fig. 19c)....................................................................................  A. bulbus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Body dark brown to black; ovipositor sheath distinctly less than 1.5× length of hind tibia, usually as long as length of hind tibia; ocelli smaller (Fig. 62e)........................................................................ 62   
 62(61). Claws strongly developed, strongly curved; posterior tangent to anterior ocellus far before posterior ocelli (Fig. 61i); areola rather small and indistinct (Fig. 61h)...................................  A. ocellisublimus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Claws poorly developed; posterior tangent to anterior ocellus closer to posterior ocelli; areola usually large and distinct.................................................................................................. 63   
 63(62). Scutellum usually quite densely striate-punctate......................................................... 64   
 - Scutellum polished or at most with scattered few indefinite punctures along sides................................................................................................................................. 66   
 64(63). T2+T3 yellow or reddish yellow; ovipositor sheath about 2/3 the length of hind tibia; temple with considerable rugosity................................................................................  A. mamitus Nixon, 1965    
 - Tergites dark brown entirely; ovipositor sheath at least about as long as hind tibia; temple at most with only trace of sculpture............................................................................................ 65   
 65(64). Ovipositor sheath about as long as hind tibia; hind coxa dull, evenly, finely, densely rugose; metacarp about 4.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell...............................................  A. hemara Nixon, 1965    
 - Ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia; hind coxa shiny, not rugose-punctate; metacarp reaching near apex of marginal cell.................................................................  A. significans Walker, 1860    
 66(63). Mesoscutum usually coarsely rugose, the lines of notaulices broad and very coarsely punctate-rugose (Fig. 38c); head above with coarse shiny sculpture (Fig. 38d); propodeum rather long (Fig. 38a).....................  A. florus Nixon, 1965    
 - Mesoscutum showing fine rugosity, the lines of notaulices not that rugose; head above without that coarse sculpture; propodeum shorter..................................................................................... 67   
 67(66). Hind tarsus pale yellow (Fig. 68a); fore wing weakly brownish (Fig. 68f); T1 relatively shorter (Fig. 68i)..............................................................................................  A. psenes Nixon, 1965    
 - Hind tarsus brownish or blackish throughout; fore wing hyaline; T1 longer.................................... 68   
 68(67). T2 longer, at most 2.7× wider than long in the middle (Fig. 24d); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia combined basitarsus (Fig. 24a); vein r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction (Fig. 24f).................  A. changhingensis Chu, 1937    
 - T2 shorter, at least 3.1× wider than long in the middle; ovipositor sheath slightly shorter than hind tibia; vein r of fore wing distinctly angled with 2-SR...............................................  A. brevicarinis Song & Chen, 2002    
 69(60). T1 parallel-sided.................................................................................. 70   
 - T1 distinctly converged towards apex................................................................. 72   
 70(69). Costulae on propodeum poorly defined, more or less wanting (Fig. 3d); ovipositor sheath much wider............... 71   
 - Costulae on propodeum well defined (Fig. 30g); ovipositor sheath narrow (Fig. 30a)............  A. cypris Nixon, 1965    
 71(70). Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction; posterior tangent to anterior ocellus far beyond posterior ocelli; metacarp 4.8× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell.......................  A. longiantenna Chen & Song, 2004    
 - Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at junction (Fig. 3b); posterior tangent to anterior ocellus touching posterior ocelli (Fig. 3g); metacarp nearly 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 3b).............................................................................................  A. altus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 72(69). Fore tarsus very short, tarsomere 2 hardly longer than wide; fore tarsomere 5 with a distinct spine...............................................................................................  A. sodalis (Haliday, 1834)    
 - Fore tarsus normal, tarsomere 2 very obviously longer than wide; fore tarsomere 5 without spine.................. 73   
 73(72). Costulae on propodeum well-defined.................................................................. 74   
 - Costulae on propodeum poorly defined, more or less wanting.............................................. 76   
 74(73). Antenna rather short, penultimate flagellomere hardly longer than wide; metacarp relatively short, about 4.0 to 5.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell; ovipositor sheath at most as long as hind tibia......................... 75   
 - Antenna longer, penultimate flagellomere about 1.5× longer than wide; metacarp longer, 6.3× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell; ovipositor sheath one-and-a-quarter times longer than hind tibia...............................................................................................  A. cavatithoracica Chen & Yang, 2001    
 75(74). Pterostigma merely slightly paler medially (Fig. 76j); ovipositor sheath about as long as hind tibia (Figs 76a, h); face more transverse, 0.7× as high as wide, with small, even punctures (Fig. 76e).........  A. scrobiculatus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Pterostigma pellucid entirely (Fig. 81d); ovipositor sheath distinctly slightly shorter than hind tibia; face less transverse, 0.8× as high as wide, shallowly coarsely punctate (Fig. 81e)..............................  A. taragamae Viereck, 1912    
 76(73). Vertex behind ocelli smooth with extremely fine, transversal aciculation (Fig. 26e); ovipositor sheath slightly longer than hind tibia (Fig. 26a); metacarp longer, nearly 6.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Figs. 26f, 104e).....................................................................................  A. clita Nixon, 1965    
 – Vertex behind ocelli shallowly punctate, without transversal aciculation (Fig. 23e); ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia (Fig. 23a); metacarp shorter, about 4.5× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 23f)........................................................................................  A. cerberus Nixon, 1965    
 77(43). Costula of propodeum virtually absent................................................................. 78   
 - Costula of propodeum more or less distinctly defined..................................................... 83   
 78(77). Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 79   
 - Hind femur dark brown to black...................................................................... 81   
 79(78). Vertex between eye and posterior ocellus slightly shiny with fine punctures (Fig. 69d); areola incomplete (open anteriorly) with U-shaped apex (Fig. 69g); vein r of fore wing perpendicular to pterostigma (Fig. 69b)................................................................................................  A. quadra Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Vertex between eye and posterior ocellus shiny with extremely shallow punctures; areola complete with V-shaped apex; vein r of fore wing strongly oblique outwards............................................................... 80   
 80(79). Punctures on mesopleuron not rugose (Fig. 27d); antenna about as long as body length, penultimate flagellomere 1.3× longer than wide (Fig. 27a); first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.4× wider than high (Fig. 27f)......................................................................................................  A. cocotis Wilkinson, 1934    
 - Punctures somewhat rugulose on and above sternaulus of mesopleuron (Fig. 51b); antenna distinctly shorter than body length, penultimate flagellomere weakly transverse; first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.7× wider than high (Fig. 51d)...........................................................................  A. limus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 81(78). Pterostigma brown with basal spot and slightly pale apically (Fig. 2e); penultimate flagellomere 1.8× longer than wide.....................................................................  A. albummacula Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Pterostigma light brown without basal spot; penultimate flagellomere cubic or just longer than wide................ 82   
 82(81). Propodeum with a complete areola (Fig. 56f); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia; T2 subtriangular, 3.3× wider than long in the middle, strongly curved into T3 apically (Fig. 56f).....................  A. magastigma Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Propodeum without areola, somewhat depressed medially (Fig. 1f); ovipositor sheath distinctly longer than hind tibia (as long as metasoma); T2 rather transverse, 5.0–6.0× wider than long in the middle, not curved into T3 apically (Fig. 1b)........................................................................  A. adoxophyesi Minamikawa, 1954    
 83(77). Temple very sharply punctate-striate (Fig. 11g); tergites with dull, satin-like sheen (Fig. 11e); ovipositor sheath wide, slightly shorter than hind tibia; T1 short, subquadrate (Fig. 11e)..............................  A. aristaeus Nixon, 1965    
 - Temple shiny with indistinct punctation................................................................ 84   
 84(83). T2, or/and, T3 yellow to reddish yellow, obviously different from remaining tergites in colour (Fig. 52h)............ 85   
 - T2 and T3 brown to black, colour as the remaining tergites................................................. 87   
 85(84). Hind femur black, in sharp contrast with the pale-yellow hind trochanter (Fig. 52a); T3 3.0× longer than T2 (Fig. 52h); tegula bright yellow (Fig. 52e)...................................................  A. longicoxa Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Hind femur yellow entirely, or sometimes dark apically; T3 at most 2.0× longer than T2; tegula brown to black....... 86   
 86(85). Hind coxa yellow (Fig. 57f); posterior three fields of propodeum shiny and smooth without carinae (Fig. 57d); face finely punctate (Fig. 57h)..........................................................  A. masoni Chen & Song, 2004    
 - Hind coxa brown to black (Fig. 62g); posterior three fields of propodeum usually shiny, unsculptured except for some rather strong secondary carinae (Fig. 62f); face with very superficial punctation (Fig. 62h)........  A. opacus (Ashmead, 1905)    
 87(84). T1 elongate, gradually narrowed from base towards apex, more or less wedge-shaped, or, converged from middle or beyond middle of T1, its horizontal part distinctly to considerably longer than wide................................... 88   
 - T1 shorter, never obviously wedge-shaped, frequently markedly to indistinctly narrowed posteriorly................ 93   
 88(87). Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 89   
 - Hind femur brown to black.......................................................................... 91   
 89(88). Pterostigma very broad, 2.3× as long as its widest part (Figs. 43b, 104k); costula poorly defined (Fig. 43e); spines along upper part of outside of hind tibia strong, very dense................................  A. galleriae Wilkinson, 1932    
 - Pterostigma narrow, at least 2.6× as long as its widest part; costula strongly defined; spines along upper part of outside of hind tibia weak and sparse.......................................................................... 90   
 90(89). Vein r of fore wing arising from apex of pterostigma, 1.3× longer than 2-SR (Fig. 48e); ovipositor sheath 1.25× longer than hind tibia; postero-lateral area of propodeum bounded externally by a keel, not always well defined, lying parallel to lateral propodeal keel and forming a narrow, longitudinal zone with it (Fig. 48c).......  A. latericarinatus Song & Chen, 2001    
 - Vein r of fore wing arising from middle of pterostigma, 2.2× longer than 2-SR (Fig. 33a); ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia; postero-lateral area of propodeum not bounded externally by a keel (Fig. 33c)..........  A. dissimile Nixon, 1965    
 91(88). Claws strongly developed; pterostigma dark yellowish brown, without a small whitish basal spot (Fig. 83h)..................................................................................  A. unguifortis Song & Chen, 2004    
 - Claws not developed; pterostigma brown, with a small whitish basal spot...................................... 92   
 92(91). Pterostigma much smaller, 3.2× as long as its widest part (Fig. 82b); first submarginal cell of hind wing much wider, 1.8× wider than high (Fig. 82g); T2 distinctly curved into T3 (Fig. 82f)...................  A. tenuis Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Pterostigma much larger, 2.5× as long as its widest part (Fig. 64b); first submarginal cell of hind wing distinctly narrower (Fig. 64f); T2 straight apically (Fig. 64g).................................  A. pachycarinatus Song & Chen, 2002    
 93(87). Hind femur blackish brown to black................................................................... 94   
 - Hind femur yellow to reddish yellow.................................................................. 97   
 94(93). Three posterior fields on propodeum rugose; pterostigma with small whitish basal spot.......................... 95   
 - Three posterior fields on propodeum smooth, at most indistinctly weakly rugulose; pterostigma without whitish basal spot................................................................................................ 96   
 95(94). Horizontal part of T1 as long as wide across the hump (Fig. 29c); scutellum with mere small indefinite punctures (Fig. 29b); three posterior fields on propodeum with strong transverse carinae (Fig. 29g)...............  A. cyprioides Nixon, 1965    
 - Horizontal part of T1 1.5× longer than wide across the hump (Fig. 54d); punctures on scutellum coarse, strong (Fig. 54f); three posterior fields on propodeum shiny with irregular carinae (Fig. 54d)...........................................................................................................  A. longirostris Chen & Song, 2004    
 96(94). Ultimate flagellomere not shrunken abruptly; vein r of fore wing strongly curved outwards (Fig. 60b)..........................................................................................  A. nixoni Song & Chen, 2002    
 - Ultimate flagellomere shrunken abruptly; vein r of fore wing somewhat curved inwards (Fig. 44b)........................................................................................  A. gracilicorne Song & Chen, 2004    
 97(93). Hind femur slightly brownish (Fig. 46h); scutellum dull with rugulose punctures entirely (Fig. 46c); metacarp 3.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Fig. 46b).............................  A. jasmine Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Hind femur bright yellow; scutellum shiny smooth or with indefinite punctures laterally; metacarp at least 4.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell................................................................... 98   
 98(97). T1 parallel-sided or indistinctly converged apically....................................................... 99   
 - T1 slightly to strongly converged apically............................................................. 103   
 99(98). Lateral polished field of scutellum reaching over half length of scutellum; hind coxa black...................... 100   
 - Lateral polished field of scutellum reaching not over half length of scutellum (Fig. 55c); hind coxa evenly reddish yellow (Fig. 55g).................................................................  A. lunata Song & Chen, 2004    
 100(99). Anterio-medial part of T3 weakly rugulose or punctulate-reticulate as T2 (Fig. 12i); costulae not clearly indicated (Fig. 79e)........................................................................................... 101   
 - T3 smooth entirely (Fig. 73d); costulae well defined (Fig. 73d)............................................ 102   
 101(100). Face transverse and less strongly punctate; metasoma 1.2× as long as mesosoma; first submarginal cell of hind wing 1.6× wider than high.........................................................  A. aspersus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Face less transverse and strongly punctate (Fig. 12g); metasoma nearly as long as mesosoma (Fig. 12a); first submarginal cell of hind wing one-and-a-third times wider than high (Fig. 12h)...............  A. stigmaium Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 102(100). Ovipositor sheath 1.3× longer than hind tibia (Fig. 73a); horizontal part of T1 with fairly distinct, polished, medial trough (Fig. 73d); wings hyaline with the setae of median cell colourless (Fig. 73e).............  A. salutifer Wilkinson, 1931    
 - Ovipositor sheath at most slightly longer than hind tibia (Fig. 25a); horizontal part of T1 without distinct medial trough (Fig. 25g); wings weakly brownish, the setae of median cell darkened (Fig. 25b)...................  A. chloris Nixon, 1965    
 103(98). Scutellum rather convex (Fig. 17d); pterostigma rather large, 2.3× as long as its widest part (Fig. 17b); temple rather short (Fig. 17g)............................................................  A. brevitempus Liu & Chen, sp. nov.    
 - Scutellum less convex; pterostigma not that large; temple longer........................................... 104   
 104(103). Ovipositor sheath distinctly longer, almost 1.5× longer than hind tibia; ovipositor sheath wide...............................................................................................  A. stictipes Chen & Song, 2004    
 - Ovipositor sheath shorter, at most 1.3× longer than hind tibia; ovipositor sheath narrower....................... 105   
 105(104). Three posterior fields on propodeum smooth........................................................... 106   
 - Three posterior fields on propodeum rugose........................................................... 109   
 106(105). Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at the meeting (Fig. 32b); metacarp fully 6.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell (Figs. 32b, 104h)....................................................  A. diocles Nixon, 1965    
 - Vein r and 2-SR of fore wing indistinctly angled at the meeting; metacarp at most 5.0× as long as its distance from apex of marginal cell.................................................................................... 107   
 107(106). Flagellomeres 12–15 about 1.6–1.7× longer than wide; vein r of fore wing perpendicular to pterostigma............ 108   
 - Flagellomeres 12–15 about 1.2–1.3× longer than wide; vein r of fore wing curved outwards (Fig. 65b)....................................................................................  A. pellucipterus Song & Chen, 2001    
 108(107). Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus just before posterior ocelli (Fig. 85c); face quadrate (Fig. 85h); inner spurs of hind tibia hardly half length of hind basitarsus..........................................  A. verticalis Song & Chen, 2004    
 - Posterior tangent to anterior ocellus slightly transecting posterior ocelli (Fig. 58f); face transverse, 0.8× as high as wide (Fig. 58b); inner spurs of hind tibia 3/5 length of hind basitarsus................................  A. medon Nixon, 1965    
 109(105). T2 4.2× wider than long in the middle (Fig. 50d); vein r and 2-SR of fore wing distinctly angled at junction (Fig. 50b); carinae on posteral-lateral field of propodeum oblique (Fig. 50g)......................  A. latisulca Chen & Song, 2004    
 - T2 2.5× wider than long in the middle (Fig. 8f); vein r and 2-SR of fore wing curved at junction (Fig. 8i); carinae on posterallateral field of propodeum nearly horizontal (Fig. 8b)..............................  A. ansata Song & Chen, 2004
description: Published as part of Liu, Zhen, He, Jun-Hua, Chen, Xue-Xin & Gupta, Ankita, 2020, The ater-group of the genus Apanteles Foerster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae) from China with the descriptions of forty-eight new species, pp. 1-205 in Zootaxa 4807 (1) on pages 6-12, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4807.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3927639