Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 3a-c in A faunistic and systematic study on Pimplinae (Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae) in Eastern and Northeastern parts of Turkey

Fig. 3a-c: Delomerista mandibularis (): (a) Areolet and II. intercubitus, (b) Abdomen, (c) Apex of ovipositor.

Fig. 4a-c in A faunistic and systematic study on Pimplinae (Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae) in Eastern and Northeastern parts of Turkey

Fig. 4a-c: Hybomischos septemcinctorius (): (a) Areolet and II. intercubitus, (b) Basolateral angular ledges, (c) Apex of ovipositor.

Fig. 6a-b in A faunistic and systematic study on Pimplinae (Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae) in Eastern and Northeastern parts of Turkey

Fig. 6a-b: Furrow of abdominal tergite II: (a) Dolichomitus romanicus, (b) D. dobrogensis (KASPARYAN 1981).

Fig. 1a-f in A faunistic and systematic study on Pimplinae (Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae) in Eastern and Northeastern parts of Turkey

Fig. 1a-f: (a) Mesoscutum on Rhyssini; (b,c,f) Last abdominal tergite in male: (b,c) Rhyssini, (d,e) Last abdominal tergite in female: (d) Megarhyssa, (e,f) Pseudorhyssa (b,c,d,e,f KASPARYAN 1981).

Figures 53–58 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 53–58. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae. Figs 53, 54, mesopleuron; 53, Dolichomitus annulicornis; 54, Pimpla azteca. Figs 55–58, propodeum, dorsal; 55, Xanthopimpla aurita; 56, Echthromorpha atrata; 57, Lissopimpla excelsa; 58, Zatypota percontatoria.

Figures 87–90 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 87–90. Hind end of mesosoma with hind legs and metasoma dis-articulated; 87, Neotheronia mellosa; 88, Pimpla sumichrasti; 89, Scambus annulatus; 90, Dolichomitus annuicornis.

Figures 41–46 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 41–46. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae. Fig. 41, Sinarachna pallipes, head, posterior. Fig. 42, Dreisbachia avivae, mandible. Figs 43–46, Head, lateral; 43, Dolichomitus irritator, 44, Zaglyptus simonis; 45, Echthromorpha atrata; 46, Hymenoepimecis bicolor.

Figures 71–76 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 71–76. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae. Figs 71, 72, tergites II—IV, dorsal; 71, Polysphincta tuberosa; 72, Zatypota petronae. Figs 73–75, apex of ovipositor; 73, Liotryphon crassiseta; 74, Endromopoda detrita; 75, Dolichomitus imperator. Fig. 76, Zatypota petronae, ovipositor entire.

Figures 23–28 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 23–28. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae, head, anterior; 23, Ephialtes manifestator; 24, Paraperithous gnathaulax; 25, Xanthephialtes oculatus; 26, Schizopyga frigida; 27, Theronia melanocera ♀; 28, Theronia melanocera ♂.

Figures 47–52 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 47–52. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae, pronotum, lateral; 47, Dolichomitus irritator; 48, Pimpla azteca; 49, Schizopyga frigida; 50, Clistopyga calixtoi; 51, Hymenoepimecis bicolor; 52, Acrodactyla degener.

Figure 22 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 22. Cladogram resulting from secondary analysis: section 9 (of 9), the Polysphincta genus-complex. Although there are some similarities in topology with the primary analysis (Figs 11–13) – such as the basal position of Piogaster and the composition of two more derived clades – all genera are apparently monophyletic.

Figures 29–34 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 29–34. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae. Figs 29–32,head, anterior; 29, Acropimpla didyma; 30, Sericopimpla australis; 31, Dolichomitus irritator ♂; 32, Xanthopimpla aurita; Figs 33, 34, base of antennae; 33, Pimpla azteca; 34, Acrodactyla degener.

Figures 94–97 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 94–97. Posterior end of metasoma of female, showing position and shape of tergites VII−IX and associated apodemes, slightly diagrammatic; 94, Pimpla sumichrasti; 95, Neotheronia mellosa; 96, Scambus brevicornis; 97, Acrotaphus tibialis. Note the great enlargement of the apodeme on tergite VIII in Pimpla.

Figures 35–40 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 35–40. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae, head, posterior; 35, Dolichomitus annulicornis; 36, Pseudopimpla pygidiator; 37, Camptotypus stigmaticus; 38, Dreisbachia avivae; 39, Eruga yehi; 40, Schizopyga frigida.

Figure 20 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 20. Cladogram resulting from secondary analysis: section 7 (of 9), the Ephialtes genus-group. The topology of this cladogram broadly resembles that of the primary analysis, but note that Dolichomitus is apparently monophyletic. The results support the primary analysis in that Endromopoda (excluding Fredegunda) and Holcopimpla are not demonstrably monophyletic.

Figure 17 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 17. Cladogram resulting from secondary analysis: section 4 (of 9), the interrelationships of Xanthopimpla, Lissopimpla and Echthromorpha.

Figures 77–82 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figures 77–82. Stereoscan photographs of Pimplinae. Fig. 77, Polysphincta tuberosa, ovipositor entire. Figs 78–82, apex of metasoma, ♂, lateroventral; 78, Scambus buolianae; 79, Delomerista laevifrons; 80, Perithous scurra, 81, Xanthopimpla aurita; 82, Pimpla caeruleata.

Figure 14 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 14. Cladogram resulting from secondary analysis: section 1 (of 9), outgroups and tribes of Pimplini, showing characters supporting both the monophyly of the subfamily and the several tribes. Note that the topology of this cladogram is essentially the same as that in Fig. 1 except for the re-arrangement of the three tribes of Pimplinae: the Delomeristini is the sister-lineage to Pimplini + Ephialtini, rather than the Pimplini being the sister-group to the Delomeristini + Ephialtini.

Figure 18 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 18. Cladogram resulting from secondary analysis: section 5 (of 9), the basal Ephialtini. Note that the topology is very similar to the primary analysis (Fig. 6) except that the Ephialtes, Camptotypus and Sericopimpla genus-groups form an unresolved trichotomy.

Figure 10 in The suprageneric groups of the Pimplinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): a cladistic re-evaluation and evolutionary biological study

Figure 10. Cladogram resulting from primary analysis: section 10 (of 13), the basal members of the Sericopimpla genusgroup. Note the demonstrably monophyletic nature of most genera (Sericopimpla, Tromatobia, Zaglyptus and Clistopyga) and their basal relationship to the Polysphincta genus-complex (the Polysphinctini of authors). Gregopimpla is apparently paraphyletic with respect to Iseropus.