Cuneogaster
The following comments are taken from the original description (Choi & Whitfield 2006).
Diagnosis. Median and lateral ocelli, forming almost equilateral triangle. Glossa long and bilobed apically. Antennal placodes two-ranked. Mesoscutum without notauli, Medioposterior band of scutellum smooth. Metanotum with phragma of scutellum slightly exposed laterally. Metanotum smooth or weakly sculptured. Propodeum smooth with complete medial longitudinal carina, but transverse carinae never present. Fore wing second submarginal cell closed (areolet present). Hind wing vannal lobe slightly convex, margin with evenly destributed row of setae. Hind coxa large, longer than tergite I. Hind tibial spurs unequal in length, with inner spur always longer than outer spur. Hind tarsal claw with a tooth at midlength, with broad basal lobe. Tergite I narrowing posteriorly, median longitudinal groove of tergite I always present. Tergite II shorter than tergite ill, tergite II widened posteriorly, smooth and polished, without well defined median field. Suture between tergite II and tergite ill indistinct in dorsal view. Hypopygium short, as long as hind basitarsus, evenly sclerotized. Ovipositor short, mostly hidden within hypopygium. Ovipositor sheaths short, with setae on apical half.
Cuneogaster possesses a unique combination of features that will easily distinguish it from any known genus of Microgastrinae. It appears closely related to the genus Diolcogaster Ashmead by its possession of the following characters: two-ranked antennal placodes, propodeum with medial longitudinal carina but without transverse carinae, second submarginal cell of fore wing closed, large hind coxa (always longer than tergite I), median longitudinal groove of tergite I, short and evenly sclerotized hypopygium, and short ovipositor and ovipositor sheath. It can be separated from Diotcogaster by its long and apically bilobed glossa and posteriorly narrowing tergite I. It is also resembles Pseudapanteles Ashmead by - its possession of the latter two characters, but differs in the small and evenly sclerotized hypopygium and the short ovipositor sheaths with setae only on the apical half. However, while females are easily diagnosed, there is currently no unique diagnostic character system that separates male Cuneogaster alone from other genera that share several key characters.
The following comments are taken from the original description (Choi & Whitfield 2006).
Diagnosis. Median and lateral ocelli, forming almost equilateral triangle. Glossa long and bilobed apically. Antennal placodes two-ranked. Mesoscutum without notauli, Medioposterior band of scutellum smooth. Metanotum with phragma of scutellum slightly exposed laterally. Metanotum smooth or weakly sculptured. Propodeum smooth with complete medial longitudinal carina, but transverse carinae never present. Fore wing second submarginal cell closed (areolet present). Hind wing vannal lobe slightly convex, margin with evenly destributed row of setae. Hind coxa large, longer than tergite I. Hind tibial spurs unequal in length, with inner spur always longer than outer spur. Hind tarsal claw with a tooth at midlength, with broad basal lobe. Tergite I narrowing posteriorly, median longitudinal groove of tergite I always present. Tergite II shorter than tergite ill, tergite II widened posteriorly, smooth and polished, without well defined median field. Suture between tergite II and tergite ill indistinct in dorsal view. Hypopygium short, as long as hind basitarsus, evenly sclerotized. Ovipositor short, mostly hidden within hypopygium. Ovipositor sheaths short, with setae on apical half.
Cuneogaster possesses a unique combination of features that will easily distinguish it from any known genus of Microgastrinae. It appears closely related to the genus Diolcogaster Ashmead by its possession of the following characters: two-ranked antennal placodes, propodeum with medial longitudinal carina but without transverse carinae, second submarginal cell of fore wing closed, large hind coxa (always longer than tergite I), median longitudinal groove of tergite I, short and evenly sclerotized hypopygium, and short ovipositor and ovipositor sheath. It can be separated from Diotcogaster by its long and apically bilobed glossa and posteriorly narrowing tergite I. It is also resembles Pseudapanteles Ashmead by - its possession of the latter two characters, but differs in the small and evenly sclerotized hypopygium and the short ovipositor sheaths with setae only on the apical half. However, while females are easily diagnosed, there is currently no unique diagnostic character system that separates male Cuneogaster alone from other genera that share several key characters.