lacking the reliable characters in some genera made several inconsistencies. The
identification is mainly based on the female specimens and it is necessary to separate
them very carefully. The male specimens generally have a stout and apically
truncated gaster, and their body is darker than females. They have more number of
antennal segments that bearing more pubescence, comparing the females. In the
genus Ephedrus, both male and females have 11-segmented antennae. There is a
series of identification keys on the aphidiinae of Iran, segregating species of various
genera (Rakhshani et al. 2007a, 2008a, 2012a), specific guilds (Rakhshani et al.
2006a, b, 2007b, 2011) or regional fauna (Rakhshani et al. 2012b; Barahoei et al.
2012, 2013). Identification at the generic level is better to be done based on the keys
covering a broader area (Starý 1976, 1979). There are many morphological characters used for identification at generic/species level in Aphidiinae. The characters in
the head (antennae, maxillary and labial palpomeres) as well as on mesosoma
(forewings, propodeum) and metasoma (petiole, female genitalia) bearing the main
diagnostic criteria (Fig. 9.2).
Normally the female genitalia acquired the adaptive evolution for best handling
of the specific host aphids. The generalist parasitoids have also their own adaptations
to cover a more general range of host aphids (Völkl and Mackauer 2000). Therefore,
it has the most value for the expert taxonomists on Aphidiinae, as well as a few other
characters combined. It is needed in many cases to make slide at least from the most
important characters. Usually the coloration has a least value for identification of
Aphidiinae because of intraspecific variability and also great dependence to the
environmental factors, including temperature (Shu-Sheng and Carver 1982).
According to the moderately well-defined host range pattern of the aphid parasitoid, it is possible to do the identification in an easier way. In the case of some
genera including Aphidius and Praon, it is almost impossible to have a trustful
identification without host data. Information about host plants and habitat give also
very useful insights helping the identification. For example, a well-known assemblage of the aphid parasitoids inhabiting alfalfa fields and it is also possible to predict
the occurring species based on the regions they were collected in Iran (Rakhshani
et al. 2006a, 2007b). Species-specific molecular markers have also been used for
identification of complicated species like Lysiphlebus fabarum (Marshall) (Rahimi
et al. 2012; Farrokhzadeh et al. 2014), Aphidius transcaspicus Telenga (Jafari et al.
2011) and Ephedrus persicae Froggatt (Farrokhzadeh et al. 2014). The complicated
species, Lysiphlebus fabarum is believed to be a young and under evolution lineage
(Rakhshani et al. 2013) including many cryptic species (Starý et al. 2014). The
recent surveys on the taxonomy of the genus Lysiphlebus resulted in identification of
some new species as well as clarifications on the taxonomy of some cryptic species
(Starý et al. 2010; Tomanović et al. 2018). Aphidius colemani Viereck was known in
Iran for several years (Starý et al. 2000; Rakhshani et al. 2008a, b, c, d), as a common
and efficient aphid parasitoid. Great biological variations in ecology and host range
of A. colemani led to confusion on its taxonomy including a long list of synonyms
(Starý 1972a, b, 1973; Takada 1998; Kavallieratos and Lykouressis 1999). Recent
molecular and morphological analyses (Tomanović et al. 2014) have concluded the
Iranian specimens all belong to Aphidius platensis Brethes and true Aphidius
9 Aphid Parasitoids: Aphidiinae (Hym., Braconidae)
337
identification is mainly based on the female specimens and it is necessary to separate
them very carefully. The male specimens generally have a stout and apically
truncated gaster, and their body is darker than females. They have more number of
antennal segments that bearing more pubescence, comparing the females. In the
genus Ephedrus, both male and females have 11-segmented antennae. There is a
series of identification keys on the aphidiinae of Iran, segregating species of various
genera (Rakhshani et al. 2007a, 2008a, 2012a), specific guilds (Rakhshani et al.
2006a, b, 2007b, 2011) or regional fauna (Rakhshani et al. 2012b; Barahoei et al.
2012, 2013). Identification at the generic level is better to be done based on the keys
covering a broader area (Starý 1976, 1979). There are many morphological characters used for identification at generic/species level in Aphidiinae. The characters in
the head (antennae, maxillary and labial palpomeres) as well as on mesosoma
(forewings, propodeum) and metasoma (petiole, female genitalia) bearing the main
diagnostic criteria (Fig. 9.2).
Normally the female genitalia acquired the adaptive evolution for best handling
of the specific host aphids. The generalist parasitoids have also their own adaptations
to cover a more general range of host aphids (Völkl and Mackauer 2000). Therefore,
it has the most value for the expert taxonomists on Aphidiinae, as well as a few other
characters combined. It is needed in many cases to make slide at least from the most
important characters. Usually the coloration has a least value for identification of
Aphidiinae because of intraspecific variability and also great dependence to the
environmental factors, including temperature (Shu-Sheng and Carver 1982).
According to the moderately well-defined host range pattern of the aphid parasitoid, it is possible to do the identification in an easier way. In the case of some
genera including Aphidius and Praon, it is almost impossible to have a trustful
identification without host data. Information about host plants and habitat give also
very useful insights helping the identification. For example, a well-known assemblage of the aphid parasitoids inhabiting alfalfa fields and it is also possible to predict
the occurring species based on the regions they were collected in Iran (Rakhshani
et al. 2006a, 2007b). Species-specific molecular markers have also been used for
identification of complicated species like Lysiphlebus fabarum (Marshall) (Rahimi
et al. 2012; Farrokhzadeh et al. 2014), Aphidius transcaspicus Telenga (Jafari et al.
2011) and Ephedrus persicae Froggatt (Farrokhzadeh et al. 2014). The complicated
species, Lysiphlebus fabarum is believed to be a young and under evolution lineage
(Rakhshani et al. 2013) including many cryptic species (Starý et al. 2014). The
recent surveys on the taxonomy of the genus Lysiphlebus resulted in identification of
some new species as well as clarifications on the taxonomy of some cryptic species
(Starý et al. 2010; Tomanović et al. 2018). Aphidius colemani Viereck was known in
Iran for several years (Starý et al. 2000; Rakhshani et al. 2008a, b, c, d), as a common
and efficient aphid parasitoid. Great biological variations in ecology and host range
of A. colemani led to confusion on its taxonomy including a long list of synonyms
(Starý 1972a, b, 1973; Takada 1998; Kavallieratos and Lykouressis 1999). Recent
molecular and morphological analyses (Tomanović et al. 2014) have concluded the
Iranian specimens all belong to Aphidius platensis Brethes and true Aphidius
9 Aphid Parasitoids: Aphidiinae (Hym., Braconidae)
337