All specimens, excluding those in Baltic amber, are housed in the Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Inquiries regarding examination or loan of material should be directed to Dr. Conrad Labandeira (labandec@si.edu). The material in Baltic amber was sent to us for identification, and where the specimens will ultimately be deposited is presently unclear, but can be tracked via the specimen CUIDs.

Collecting unit identifiers (CUIDs) were assigned only to the specimens that we photographed, which includes all specimens treated taxonomically (Paridris yumai sp. n. and Plaumannion fistulosum sp. n.). Suppl. material 1 provides the complete list of specimens examined, taxonomic determinations, USNM catalog numbers, and CUIDs, when applicable. The collection data for these specimens can be found in the Hymenoptera Online Database (http://purl.oclc.org/NET/hymenoptera/hol) by entering the specimen identifier (CUID) in the search form.

Occurrence records were exported from xBio:D in a Darwin Core Archive, with records to specimen images included, using Audubon Core vocabularies. These records were subsequently loaded into the xBio:D IPT <http://xbiod.osu.edu/ipt/> as a new resource titled, “Fossil Platygastroidea of the USNM.” The xBio:D IPT uses the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit software (Robertson et al. 2014) to disseminate biodiversity with the research community via Darwin Core Archives and is the preferred data harvesting method for many biodiversity aggregators, e.g., iDigBio, GBIF, etc.

Images were produced using a Microvision Instruments imaging system with Cartograph software, a Z16 Leica lens and a JVC KY-F75U digital camera. Single montage images were produced from image stacks with the program CombineZP. In some cases, multiple montaged images were stitched together in Photoshop to produce larger images at high resolution and magnification. Full resolution images, and additional photographs of the taxa treated here, are archived in Specimage, the image repository associated with the Hymenoptera Online Database (http://purl.oclc.org/NET/hymenoptera/specimage) and MorphBank (http://www.morphbank.net).

Images in Morphbank are organized according to the their level of identification. Links to collections of the full resolution images are provided following the header for each taxon and include many images not included in the figures. In some cases, the photographs in the figures are flipped horizontally to provide consistent views of the specimens, with the head to the left. The images in Morphbank and Specimage are presented in their original orientations.

The images in Specimage may be retrieved by searching the CUID or the taxon name, and are organized in the project “Fossils of Platygastroidea in the USNM”.

Our terminology largely follows Mikó et al. 2007, with a notable exception. We found that striation radiating from the pleurostomal condyle anterior to the malar sulcus and striation posterior to the malar sulcus are independent characters. We here provide an alternative concept for facial striae: “the anatomical cluster anterior to the malar sulcus that is composed of carinae radiating from the pleurostomal condyle”. Similarly, malar striae are defined as “the anatomical cluster posterior to the malar sulcus that is composed of carinae radiating from the pleurostomal condyle”. For specimens in which striation exists but there is no malar sulcus, we apply the term “periepistomal striation”. These terms, and others used in the text, are matched to anatomical concepts in the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology (HAO) (Yoder et al. 2010). A full list of morphological terms, definitions, and URLs to additional information in the HAO is provided in Suppl. material 2.

bs basiconic sensillum (Figs 44–45)

eps episternal foveae (Fig. 94)

fs facial striae (Fig. 95)

mees mesepimeral sulcus (Fig. 94)

mp mesopleural pit (Fig. 94)

ms malar striae (Figs 88, 90–91)

pssu prespecular sulcus (Fig. 94)

sc submedian carina on T1 (Fig. 80)

shms mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus (Fig. 80)

sk sublateral keel (Fig. 80)

sv submarginal vein (Fig. 12)

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/7818

Figures 1–4; Morphbank¹

Comments. Figures 1 and 3–4 illustrate specimens of Allostemma for which all of the characters were congruent with the diagnostic characters of Masner and Huggert (1989), with the exclusion of the tibial spurs, which we were unable to observe. The form of the extruded ovipositor system provides additional support for our generic determination (Fig. 2), given that this particular form of the ovipositor system is not known to us from other platygastrine genera. This specimen has a distinct break in the submarginal vein of the fore wing, directly proximal to the forked terminus- a character state that we have not yet observed in extant specimens of this genus.

Figure 1–2. 

1 Allostemma, female (USNMENT00764972), head, mesosoma, metasoma and ovipositor, lateral view 2 Allostemma burnneum, female (OSUC334187), head, mesosoma, metasoma and ovipositor, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 3–5. 

3 Allostemma, female (USNMENT01059432), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 4 Allostemma, female (USNMENT01059432), head, mesosoma, ventrolateral view 5 Leptacis, female (USNMENT00903167), head, mesosoma, metasoma, posterodorsal view.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/7832

Figure 7; Morphbank²

Comments. Our determination of this specimen as Inostemma is based primarily on the 4-merous antennal clava and the submarginal vein of the fore wing terminating in a knob; the presence or absence of the felt field on metasomal S2 was not observable. The terminus of the submarginal vein is slightly bilobed in this specimen, a condition that we have not seen previously in Inostemma, but which we here attribute to intrageneric variability.

Figure 6–7. 

6 Leptacis, female (USNMENT01109283b), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 7 Inostemma, female (USNMENT00764965), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/7836

Figure 5–6; Morphbank³

Comments. Leptacis in Baltic amber (Fig. 6), as far as we can observe, exhibits characters used to identify this genus that appears entirely congruent with concepts of this genus based on extant specimens.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/7843

Figures 8–13; Morphbank⁴

Comments. Hypotheses about the evolution of Platygaster are hampered by the nebulous limits of this genus and the huge number of species in the group that have yet to be divided into meaningful subgeneric groups. We found no characters among the species of Platygaster in Dominican amber that cannot be found in extant species. Examination of a specimen in Baltic amber (Figs 12–13), which we here classify as Platygaster, exhibits two noteworthy characters: the submarginal vein in the fore wing is well defined and extends for about one quarter of the wing’s length (Fig. 12) and A8–A9 strongly project anteroventrally (Fig. 13), similar to A7–A8 in Allotropa (Fig. 14).

Figure 8. 

Platygaster female (USNMENT00764976), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view.

Figure 9–11. 

9 female (USNMENT01059275), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 10 female (USNMENT00764988), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 11 female (USNMENT00764975), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 12–14. 

12 Platygaster, female (USNMENT01109284), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 13 Platygaster, female (USNMENT01109284), head and antennae, lateral view 14 Allotropa, female (OSUC404951), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Morphbank⁵

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/7866

Figures 15–18; Morphbank⁶

Comments. Fidiobia was the most abundant genus in the material we examined, undoubtedly the result of their association with the eggs of phytophagous beetles, Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae (Masner and Huggert 1989), many of which are associated with trees.

Figure 15–17. 

Fidiobia 15 female (USNMENT01029318), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 16 female (USNMENT01059277), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 17 female (USNMENT01059431), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 18. 

Fidiobia, female (USNMENT00877716), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/7872

Figure 19; Morphbank⁷

Figure 19. 

Parabaeus, female (USNMENT01059078), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/451

Figure 27; Morphbank¹⁰

Comments. The presence of Aradophagus in amber is not surprising, given their association with spiders (Vetter et al. 2012), which is the presumed reason for the abundance of Idris in amber.

Figure 27–30. 

27 Aradophagus, female (USNMENT01109096), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 28 Embidobia, female (USNMENT01059276), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 29 Embioctonus, female (USNMENT01059080), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 30 Odontacolus (USNMENT00979980), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/461

Figures 31–32; Morphbank¹¹

Figure 31–32. 

Calliscelio 31 female (USNMENT01059082), head, mesosoma, metasoma, posterolateral view 32 male (USNMENT01109332), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/462

Figures 33–36; Morphbank¹²

Comments. Calotelea is abundant in Dominican amber, represented by perhaps half a dozen species in the USNM collection. Consequently, there are many beautifully preserved specimens that will be very useful for work at the species level when the Neotropical fauna of this genus is revised.

Figure 33–34. 

Calotelea 33 female (USNMENT01109103), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 34 female (USNMENT01109126), head, mesosoma, metasoma, ventrolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 35–36 

Calotelea 35 female (USNMENT01059376), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 36 female (USNMENT01109099), head, mesosoma, metasoma and ovipositor, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/474

Figures 37–38; Morphbank¹³

Comments. Figures 37–38 illustrate what we consider to be a typical form of Duta. The robust skaphion, absence of malar and facial striae, and simple metascutellum are all useful diagnostic characters. Elongation of A3–A5 is commonly found in this genus, and is expressed here in a moderate form.

Figure 37–38. 

Duta, female (USNMENT01059071) 37 head, mesosoma, metasoma and ovipostior, dorsolateral view 38 head, mesosoma, metasoma and ovipositor, ventrolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/478

Figures 28, 39–42, 45, 47; Morphbank¹⁴

Comments. The 3-merous clava of the specimen illustrated in Figures 39–42 initially led us to identify it as Palaeogryon. Figure 40 illustrates our first view of the specimen, including the wing venation, the stout bristles along the submarginal vein, and the 3-merous clava that are shared by Embidobia and Palaeogryon. Upon cutting the amber to fully observe the number of antennomeres it became clear that this species belongs to Embidobia, and we here reevaluate some of the characters used to diagnose these genera.

Figure 39–40. 

Embidobia, female (USNMENT01109100) 39 head, anterior view; mesosoma and metasoma, ventrolateral view 40 head, mesosoma, metasoma, posterolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 41–42. 

Embidobia, female (USNMENT01109100) 41 head, lateral view; mesosoma and metasoma, ventrolateral view 42 head, mesosoma, metasoma, anterodorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

The clava in platygastroids has been defined in two ways, by width of the antennomere and by the presence of basiconic sensilla (Bin 1981). Masner (1976) used size to define clavomeres, and in most Embidobia A8 is distinctly larger than A7, resulting in its designation as a clavomere. The presence of basiconic sensilla provide an unambiguous means of designating clavomeres but can be challenging to observe in small specimens. Despite this, we prefer the latter definition, and clarify that all Embidobia that we have examined have a 3-merous clava based on the presence of basiconic sensilla. Clavomeres tend to be larger than non-clavomeres, and so size is sometimes a useful, but imperfect, proxy for the the presence of sensilla when the sensillar structures are not within view.

Figure 48 illustrates the metascutellum of Palaeogryon, which is sufficiently developed posteriorly to be unreliable, in our opinion, for separating this genus from Embidobia (compare to Figures 40, 42). Masner (1976) also used the frontal depression (antennal scrobe) to separate Embidobia from Palaeogryon. We do not consider the dorsal limit of the antennal scrobe to be sufficiently defined to warrant its use in separating these genera (see Figs 46–47). However, Embidobia and Palaeogryon remain easily identifiable by the number of antennomeres, 9 in Palaeogryon and 11 in Embidobia, and so reliance on these subtly differing characters is not necessary.

Figure 43–48. 

43 Embioctonus, female (USNMENT01059112), head, ventrolateral view 44 Embioctonus, female (USNMENT01059113), antennal clava, lateral view 45 Embidobia, female (USNMENT01059111), antennal clava, ventral view 46 Palaeogryon muesebecki, holotype female (USNMENT01059240), head and antennae, anterolateral view 47 Embidobia urichi, paralectotype female (USNMENT01109249), head and antennae, anterior view 48 Palaeogryon, female (OSUC404926), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Palaeogryon is remarkably similar to Sembilanocera Brues (Baltic amber, Figures 49–50) with which it shares 9-merous antennae with a 3-merous clava, and a sharp angle in the submarginal vein at its intersection with the basal vein (or remnants of the basal vein). The two may be separated by characters used in the generic description of Palaeogryon (Masner 1969): postmarginal vein much longer than stigmal vein; submarginal, marginal, and postmarginal veins with large bristles; frontal depression present; ocelli distant from inner orbits of eye. In Sembilanocera, the postmarginal and stigmal vein are approximately equal in length; the wing veins lack bristles; the frontal depression is absent, and the ocelli are close to the inner orbits.

Figure 49–50. 

Sembilanocera, female (USNMENT01109280) 49 habitus, dorsolateral view 50 habitus ventrolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/479

Figures 29, 43–44; Morphbank¹⁵

Comments. In addition to the characters presented by Masner (1980), Embioctonus may be separated from Embidobia by the incomplete or absent malar sulcus (Fig. 43).

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/487

Figures 51–54; Morphbank¹⁶

Figure 51. 

Gryon, female (USNMENT01059086), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 52–54. 

Gryon 52 female (USNMENT01059072), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 53 female (USNMENT00989156), head and mesosoma, anterodorsal view 54 female (USNMENT00989156), head and mesosoma, posteroventral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/496

Figures 55–62; Morphbank¹⁷

Comments. Two generic concepts exist for Idris. One includes species in which females have T1 expanded dorsally into a horn and the other concept excludes these species, placing them in Ceratobaeus Ashmead. Masner and Denis (1996) treated Ceratobaeus as a junior synonym of Idris based on their analysis of Nearctic Idris in which they stated that the horn of T1 is variable within multiple species groups of Idris, and thus the horn does not correspond to a monophyletic group. Iqbal and Austin (2000) resurrected Ceratobaeus on more utilitarian grounds. They argued that Ceratobaeus provided a useful means of categorizing species for identification and that the possible polyphyly of Idris was justification for maintaining a polyphyletic Ceratobaeus. The molecular phylogeny of the tribe Baeini by Carey et al. (2007) retrieved both Idris and Ceratobaeus as polyphyletic, a state that could be resolved by treating Ceratobaeus and Hickmanella Austin as junior synonyms.

We here follow the classification of Masner and Denis (1996) and treat species with a horn on T1 as part of Idris. We are not making nomenclatural acts in either Idris or Ceratobaeus and without comprehensive study of them do not wish to do so, particularly because a phylogenetic study of generic relationships in Platygastroidea, conducted as part of the PlatygastroideaPlanetary Biodiversity Inventory (PBI) is currently in its final stages and will provide the most thorough analysis of the group to date.

Figure 55–58. 

Idris 55 female (USNMENT01059079), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 56 female (USNMENT00903168), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 57 female (USNMENT00979982), habitus, dorsal view 58 female (USNMENT00979982), habitus, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 59–62. 

Idris 59 female (USNMENT01059089), habitus, lateral view 60 female (USNMENT00979983), habitus, lateral view 61 female (USNMENT01059091), habitus, ventral view 62 female (USNMENT01109097), habitus, ventrolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/501

Figure 63; Morphbank¹⁸

Figure 63–65. 

63 Leptoteleia, male (USNMENT01059088), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 64 Macroteleia, female (USNMENT01059074), head, mesosoma, metasoma, ventrolateral view 65 Psilanteris, head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/504

Figure 64; Morphbank¹⁹

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/525

Figure 30; Morphbank²⁰

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/527

Figures 66–69; Morphbank²¹

Figure 66–69. 

Opisthacantha 66 female (USNMENT01059085), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 67 female (USNMENT01059085), head, mesosoma, metasoma, ventrolateral view 68 male (USNMENT01059081), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 69 male (USNMENT01059081), head and mesosoma, dorsolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/544

Figures 83–86; Morphbank²⁴

Figure 83–84. 

Probaryconus 83 female (USNMENT01109098), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 84 male (USNMENT01059379), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 85–86. 

Probaryconus 85 female (USNMENT00764974), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 86 female (USNMENT01050360), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/549

Figure 65; Morphbank²⁵

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/560

Figures 49–50; Morphbank²⁶

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/563

Figures 87–92; Morphbank²⁷

Comments. We here expand the concept of Spiniteleia to include a species without a spine on the posterior of the mesoscutellum. Figures 87–89 illustrate a specimen that exhibits nearly all of the diagnostic characters for Spiniteleia: malar striae present; facial striae absent; skaphion absent; metascutellum present as a simple smooth strip; Scelio-type ovipositor. The dorsal head, mesosoma and anterior metasoma were sufficiently visible for us to observe the smooth and simple mesoscutellum, and the mesoscutum on which we saw no evidence of a skaphion. However, turbidity of the amber precluded us from capturing photographs of these characters. Before expanding the concept of Spiniteleia, we considered three similar genera: Duta, Holoteleia Kieffer, and Masnerella Özdikmen. Masnerella is similar in its lack of a skaphion (Fig. 93), but we excluded this genus because it has facial striae (Fig. 95), the mesepimeral and prespecular sulci on the mesopleuron are comprised of elongate cells (Fig. 94), and the episternal foveae extend dorsally to the mesopleural pit (Fig. 94). None of these are found in the amber specimen. We excluded it from Duta because this genus has a skaphion and lacks malar striae, and excluded Holoteleia because this genus lacks malar striae.

This species keys to couplet 36 in Masner’s (1980) key to Holarctic Scelioninae, where it agrees with all of the characters listed for Spiniteleia, excluding the spine on the posterior of the mesoscutellum. The mesoscutellar spine of Spiniteleia is presumably derived, and thus it is not unreasonable to discover a specimen with the characters of Spiniteleia that predates the emergence of the spine. Alternatively, the spine may simply be variable within the genus. Our placement of this species in Spiniteleia is supported by a study of external head morphology in Platygastroidea currently being conducted by the first author. Among the specimens and genera analyzed in this project, Spiniteleia alone has the combination of malar striae present, facial striae absent, and a Scelio-type ovipositor system. To accommodate the fossil species, either the concept of Holoteleia would be expanded to include species with malar striae, or Spiniteleia would be expanded to include species without a mesoscutellar spine. We rejected expanding the concept of Holoteleia because the state of lacking both facial and malar striae is found in many genera in addition to those mentioned above (Calliscelio, Telenomus, Gryon, Trissolcus, Macroteleia, Palpoteleia Kieffer) and we prefer to lean in the direction of diagnosability when making taxonomic decisions.

Figure 87–91. 

Spiniteleia 87 female (USNMENT01059070), head, mesosoma, metasoma and ovipositor, ventral view 88 female (USNMENT01059070), head, anteroventral view 89 female (USNMENT01059070), head and mesosoma, lateral view 90 female (USNMENT00989622_1), head, anterior view 91 Spiniteleia campbelli, paratype female (USNMENT01029349), head, anterolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 92–95. 

92 Spiniteleia campbelli, paratype female (USNMENT01029349), head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 93 Masnerella cincta (USNMENT01081153), head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 94 Masnerella cincta (USNMENT01081153), mesosoma, lateral view 95 Masnerella cincta (USNMENT01081153), head, anterolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/575

Figures 96–97; Morphbank²⁸

Figure 96–97. 

Triteleia, female (USNMENT01059083) 96 head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 97 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figures 98–99; Morphbank²⁹

Figure 98–99. 

Scelioninae, male (USNMENT01059096) 98 head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 99 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figure 26; Morphbank³⁰

Specimen USNMENT00979592 (Fig. 26) is not identifiable to genus but it is a useful record of a Scelio-type ovipositor system, which we determined by the following characteristics: The length that the ovipositor extends beyond the apex of the metasoma is as long as the metasoma itself, but the ovipositor itself is visible only in the distal half. Second, near the tip of the ovipositor is a dark area that corresponds to the typical location of sclerotized T7+8 when it is extruded with the ovipositor. Lastly, exsertion of the ovipositor at the time of death occurs commonly in extant scelionines with a Scelio-type ovipositor, but in scelionines with a Ceratobaeus-type ovipositor this is rare, and when it does occur it is not so far extruded.

Among described fossil species with a Scelio-type ovipositor, Chromoteleia theobaldi Maneval, described from Baltic amber, and Macroteleia renatae Szabó & Oehlke, 1986 are potentially the oldest. However, use of these determinations for dating a phylogenetic node may be problematic for multiple reasons. First, Baltic amber is typically dated at 40–60 million years of age, which is a very broad range, and the precise age is debated (Buffington et al. 2014). The Kishenehn formation has a relatively narrow age range, with the largest window of error spanning from 38.6 to 48.4 mya, providing a significantly more accurate date (Constenius 1996, Greenwalt et al. in press). Second, we have reservations about accepting this determination of Chromoteleia theobaldi at face value. Neither the description nor the illustration of this species indicates the presence of a metascutellar plate, a defining character of this genus. The illustration also shows seven visible tergites whereas T7 is internal in extant Chromoteleia, unless extruded with the ovipositor system. Maneval’s (1938) illustration may document the preservation of a partially extruded T7 or may simply be incorrect. Alternatively Chromoteleia may have exhibited an alternative arrangement of tergites, or this species may belong to a different genus.

The phylogeny of Platygastroidea by Murphy et al. (2007) retrieved genera with a Scelio-type ovipositor (Nyleta Dodd, Probaryconus, Neoscelio Dodd) at the base of the main scelionid clade that contains Idris, known from Baltic amber, and Telenominae, now known from Kishenehn shale. Archaeoteleia, which also has a Scelio-type ovipositor system but was not included in the analysis of Murphy et al. (2007), retains many plesiomorphies that suggest its location in the phylogeny is even closer to the split between Platygastridae and Scelionidae. Specimen USNMENT00979592 can easily be distinguished from Archaeoteleia on the basis of wing venation and antennal characters (see Early et al. 2007). This record of a Scelio-type ovipositor at 45 mya is not particularly illuminating given the age of the group, but it demonstrates the kind of information that a specimen can provide without assigning a taxonomic name.