Updated list of the insect parasitoids (Insecta, Hymenoptera) associated with Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775) (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) in Italy. 2. Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Anomaloninae and Campopleginae

Abstract In this second review of the parasitoids recorded on Lobesia botrana (EGVM) in Italy, an updated list and summary of the information available on 14 taxa of Ichneumonidae belonging to the subfamilies Anomaloninae and Campopleginae are provided. For each taxon, geographic distributions, host ranges, ecological role in viticulture and/or in other crops, and taxonomy are provided and discussed. For the most interesting species, tables summarizing the parasitization rates recorded in the field on EGVM or other lepidopteran pests are given. Identification mistakes and wrong synonymies that have generated great confusion and often made geographic distributions and host ranges unreliable are highlighted. A list of four Anomaloninae and 27 Campopleginae recorded on EGVM in Europe is also provided. Among the species examined, Campoplex capitator Aubert is the only potential candidate for biological control of EGVM.


Introduction
A general overview of the parasitoids of Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775) (European grapevine moth, EGVM) recorded in Italy, including Diptera Tachinidae and Hymenoptera Braconidae, has been recently published (Scaramozzino et al. 2017a). This second contribution deals with two subfamilies of Ichneumonidae, the Anomaloninae and Campopleginae.

Materials and methods
As in the previous contribution (Scaramozzino et al. 2017a), the list of Ichneumonidae living on EGVM in Italy has been compiled using all the documents published on the subject, both in Italy (Table 1) and worldwide. As previously done, we also reviewed the parasitoid lists compiled by Thompson (1946), Coscollá (1997), Hoffmann and Michl (2003), and CABI (2017). The names of the species have been checked and updated according to the following databases: Taxapad (Yu et al. 2012), Noyes (2017) and Fauna Europaea (de Jong et al. 2014). In addition, material from the following private collections has been examined: J-F. Aubert at the Musée Cantonal de Zoologie in Lausanne (Switzerland), K. Horstmann at the Zoologische Staatssammlung in Munich (Germany, ZSM), F. Silvestri at the Department of Agriculture in Portici (Naples, Italy).

Parania geniculata (Holmgren, 1857)
Italian distribution of reared parasitoids. Trentino-South Tyrol: Silvestri 1912. Distribution. This species is widespread over most of the temperate Holarctic region. It is quite common in the Nearctics (Yu et al. 2012), while in the Palaearctics its distribution is limited to the Western part only: Europe, Central Russia and Turkey (Yu et al. 2012, Zwakhals andvan Achterberg 2017).
Ecological role. Silvestri (1912) reared a single male of this species from overwintering pupae of EGVM in San Michele (Trentino) in May.
Taxonomic notes. Parania geniculata is one of the smallest European species of the subfamily Anomaloninae. It parasitizes mostly Tortricidae (Schnee 2008). The species was originally described by Holmgren (1857) as Anomalon geniculatum and subsequently transferred to the genus Atrometus Förster, 1869 by Thomson (1892). Silvestri (1912) has erroneously attributed the authorship of the species to Förster, who just described the genus Atrometus (Förster 1869). Then Townes (1971) transferred the species to Parania Morley, 1913, with P. geniculata as the only European species of this small, but widely distributed genus. Probably because of this nomenclatural inexactness, Hoffmann and Michl (2003) have misinterpreted the specimen obtained by Silvestri and put it in synonymy with Sinophorus geniculatus Gravenhorst, 1829, which belongs to the subfamily Campopleginae. The specimen figured by Silvestri (1912, fig. XXXIX, Figure 1A) clearly belongs to Anomaloninae. After comparing the figure by Silvestri with specimens of Atrometus insignis Förster, 1878 (a South European species that could be confused with Parania), and Parania geniculata in his collection, Heinz Schnee recognized the specimens depicted by Silvestri as P. geniculata, for the following reasons: "…small number of flagellomeres, small brachial cell, mesoscutum and scutellum somewhat longer, and slender hind tarsi"; on the contrary, "…Atrometus insignis is therefore out of the question, because in the drawing the characteristic transverse furrow on posterior part of the mesoscutum is absent and the brachial cell is too small. Also the hind tarsi of P. geniculata are much thinned, while they are strongly thickened in males of A. insignis. Moreover, the hosts of A. insignis are Zygaena spp. (Lepidoptera Zygaenidae) and other host assignments are very likely wrong (Schnee in litteris)". We have searched for the specimen identified by Silvestri without finding it.   Distribution. Palaearctic species occurring throughout Europe, Canary Islands, Near East (Turkey and Syria), Northern and Central Russia, Kazakhstan, Russian Far East, Korea and Japan (Yu et al. 2012;Zwakhals and van Achterberg 2017). In 1931, it was released in North America (New Jersey, USA) to control the Oriental fruit moth, without becoming established (Carlson 1979).
Host range. Females lay eggs on young larvae that live hidden in the vegetation. Yu et al. (2012) list 28 host species, many of which belong to the family Tortricidae, including the fruit crop pests Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus, 1758), Archips rosana (Linnaeus, 1758) and Grapholita molesta (Busck, 1916 (Morley 1915). Habermehl (1922) reports as host also Gelechia boticella, but the identity of this species still remains unclear.
Ecological role. Trichomma enecator is a solitary, koinobiont, larval-pupal endoparasitoid on fruit-mining or other concealed lepidopterous larvae. It is one of the most common parasitoids of the codling moth in Europe (Franck et al. 2017). Although quite common, its control action on the codling moth is limited, with parasitization rates rarely exceeding 5% (Table 4), being inexplicably absent in some apple orchards (Maalouly et al. 2013).
What we know about its biology is mainly due to Rosenberg (1934), who studied the codling moth in French apple orchards. This parasitoid attacks the host larvae, hibernating in the larval stage inside the host; the adult emerges from the pupa, some weeks before the host; the emergence period, in outdoor insectary, lasts 10-24 days, from the second half of May to the beginning of June. In captivity both genders may live approximately a month. Females start to oviposit one or two days after emergence, and their eggs hatch in approximately eight days (Rosenberg 1934). Despite its presence in most of the areas in Rosenberg's survey, the parasitism rate never surpassed 3.11%.
Trichomma enecator females parasitize all the larval instars of the codling moth inside the fruits. The females are attracted by exudates that accumulate on the surface of the fruits infested by the codling moth larvae; in the absence of these exudates, the parasitization behavior is disrupted (Mills and Dixon 1993). To breed this species in insectarium is very difficult (Mills 2005), even if Russ and Faber (1978) were able to rear it until F6 generation by the same method used to rear Ascogaster quadridentatus Wesmael, 1845 (Hymenoptera, Braconidae).
At our latitude, T. enecator is a multivoltine species, while in Central-Northern Europe (Gauld andMitchell 1977, Sedivy 2001) and Spain (Miñarro and Dapena Wildbolz and Staub (1985) and Athanassov et al. (1998) Höhn et al. Trichomma enecator has a secondary importance on EGVM; Telenga (1934) obtained it in early June in Crimea. In Piedmont (Italy), a single specimen emerged from pupae of the overwintering generation of L. botrana (Colombera et al. 2001). In the Natural Reserve of San Rossore (Pisa, Tuscany), we obtained 13 specimens of T. enecator from EGVM pupae in July 2012 and from EGVM and C. pronubana pupae in May and July 2014. Pupae of both tortricids were collected into the nests formed by the larva on the apical buds of the spurge flax Daphne gnidium (Malvales, Thymelaeaceae) (Scaramozzino et al. 2017b).

Subfamily: Campopleginae
As mentioned, 27 taxa belonging to nine different genera of Campopleginae are reported on EGVM in Eurasia (Table 3). Many species of this subfamily are important natural enemies of insect pests (Lepidoptera above all) and were often used in biological control programs (Quicke 2015). The few species that have been studied in detail often represent the dominant component in parasitoid community of a given host and could be good biological control agent candidates (Jenner et al. 2005). Unfortunately, the uncertainty associated with the taxonomic status of many species and the lack of updated and well-illustrated literature often represent an obstacle to their use in biological control programs. Females are barely identifiable and males are often indeterminable (Horstmann 2012). Misidentifications are easy, making associated host ranges mostly unreliable (Fitton and Walker 1992, Shaw and Horstmann 1997, Jenner et al. 2013. It descends that it is difficult to adopt a species as a potential biological control agent, particularly focusing on the risk it could represent for non-target species in a new area. Probably, for many species the host range is narrower than that inferred from the literature (Jenner et al. 2013, Horstmann 2012.
Ecological role. In three years of sampling on Daphne gnidium, Nuzzaci and Triggiani (1982) obtained three specimens of this parasitoid from larvae of L. botrana (identified by K. Horstmann). This is the only record on EGVM so far.
Taxonomic notes. Campoplex borealis is the species that gives its name to a "borealis" species-group of the genus Campoplex (Horstmann 2012). With the name of C. borealis were indicated at least six different species (Horstmann 2012), morphologically very similar and mainly characterized by their host preferences. Right now, eight species are included in this species-group: C. borealis (Zetterstedt, 1838), C. jaeckhi (Bauer, 1936), C. psammae (Morley, 1915), C. punctipleuris Horstmann, 1980, C. serratellae Horstmann, 2012, C. caloptiliae Horstmann, 2013, C. tussilaginis Horstmann, 2013and Campoplex linosyridellae Horstmann, 2016. They are mainly related to Coleophoridae and Gelechiidae; one species, C. caloptiliae, lives on Gracillariidae, while a second species close to C. psammae lives on Psychidae (Horstmann 1980, Shaw et al. 2016). Horstmann (1985) does not mention EGVM among the hosts of C. borealis, despite a male and a female collected by Nuzzaci and Triggiani are in his collection in ZSM.
Italian distribution of reared parasitoids. Trentino-South Tyrol: Catoni 1910Catoni , 1914Silvestri 1912;Schwangart 1913Schwangart , 1918Ruschka and Fulmek 1915. Veneto: Marchesini and Dalla Montà 1992Dalla Montà et al. 1993;Marchesini et al. 2006;Marchesini 2007  Distribution. Campoplex capitator is a Mediterranean species, occurring in the Iberian Peninsula, France, Corsica, Italy, Switzerland and Turkey (Yu et al. 2012;Zwakhals and van Achterberg 2017). It is widespread in most of the southern European wine-growing areas (Bagnoli and Lucchi 2006), although its presence on EGVM in Southern Italy was not definitely ascertained. Nuzzaci and Triggiani (1982), in Apulia, underline the presence of C. difformis on EGVM feeding on Daphne gnidium and the absence of C. capitator, as already stated by Silvestri (1912). When checking his collection in Naples, we found two series of specimens, both reported as C. difformis from L. botrana. Actually, the two series are composed of at least three different species:

Campoplex capitator from Portici (Naples), 5 females and 3 males, and from San
Michele all'Adige (Trento), 3 females, 3 males and 1 individual without metasoma. The specimens from San Michele all'Adige have the same origin of those studied and published by Catoni (1910) with the name of C. difformis and identified by O. von Schmiedeknecht. 2. Diadegma stigmatellae Horstmann, 1980 (Campopleginae), 6 males and 4 females from Portici, a parasitoid of Gracillariidae (Shaw and Horstmann 1997 We are not sure if the two series of specimens correspond to those actually studied by Silvestri but we think that the Campoplex specimens he had attributed to Omorgus difformis belong to C. capitator. In the Horstmann collection, as well as in the general collection of ZSM, we found 7 females and 6 males of C. capitator from Sicily (Alcamo, TP), emerged from larvae of L. botrana feeding on grapes in July 2007, August 2009 and late May-June 2010. Also in the Horstmann collection we examined a male and a female of C. capitator from Piacenza (Northern Italy), obtained from E. ambiguella.
Host range. Campoplex capitator seems to have an extremely limited host range. It was discovered on EGVM for the first time by Coscollá (1980) in Spain. Yu et al. (2012) list only two host species, L. botrana and Ancylis mitterbacheriana (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775) (Lepidoptera Tortricidae). According to Villemant et al. (2011), in French vineyards C. capitator lives mainly at the expenses of L. botrana and E. ambiguella, though it has been obtained occasionally also from S. pilleriana. All the mentioned hosts live mainly on the grapevine, with the exception of A. mitterbacheriana, an univoltine leaf folder which lives on deciduous woodlands and whose larvae feed on the leaves of beech, common hornbeam, oaks, and sweet chestnut (Alford 2012, Brown et al. 2008. Ecological role. Campoplex capitator is a solitary koinobiont larval endoparasitoid. Its development is strongly synchronized with L. botrana: both species overwinter in the same places, and live in close association, the first at the expense of the larvae of all the moth generations. The female oviposits into the body of EGVM larvae of 2nd-4th instar (Thiéry 2008, Villemant et al. 2011. Endophagous larva kills the host after spinning its own cocoon inside the moth cocoon. The larva of C. capitator builds a delicate elongated semi-transparent cocoon characterized by rounded poles, white color and a thin median opaque transverse line ( Figure 4D).
The parasitization rates recorded in Europe (Italy excluded) are shown in Table 5, while those recorded in Italy are shown in Table 6. Silvestri (1912) frequently found C. capitator on EGVM, both in Trentino (Northern Italy), in spring, and in Portici (Naples), from July to September. In Veneto (Northern Italy) it attacks all the generations of EGVM, with irregular and not particularly high rate of parasitism, often less than 1%, sometimes close to 12% in the first generation and 14% in the second and slightly more than 8% in the third generation (Marchesini andDalla Montà 1994, Marchesini et al. 2006); sometimes it is absent. In Piedmont, where EGVM developed 2 generations per year, Colombera et al. (2001) recorded parasitization rates of 7.4% and 5.9%, respectively. In Tuscany (Central Italy), on grapevine, C. capitator is the  (Bagnoli and Lucchi 2006). In the Natural Reserve of San Rossore (Pisa, Tuscany), it is very frequent on Daphne gnidium, where it represents the dominant species in the parasitoid community of EGVM; attacking larvae of all three generations, it contributed for more than 58% of the total number of parasitoids found in 2014 and more than 73% in 2015, with an overall annual parasitization rate for 2014 next to 10% (Loni et al. 2016).
In France, the rates of parasitism can be very high, especially in the EGVM first generation (Villemant et al. 2011). In the vineyards of Valencia (Spain), C. capitator is the only larval parasitoid that plays a significant role in the control of EGVM, even if the total parasitism levels found in that region were low across all the three generations (Coscollá 1997). In Douro Wine Region (Portugal), C. capitator is the second most abundant parasitoid of EGVM (Carlos et al. 2013), representing the 11.8% of parasitoids obtained in 10-year surveys. In Turkey, the species is mostly widespread in the Aegean vineyards (Koclu et al. 2005(Koclu et al. , Özsemerci et al. 2016. Despite being considered one of the possible candidates for use in the biological control of EGVM, the knowledge about its behavior and its development are too limited and still some difficulties have to be overcome to develop an efficient mass rearing in bio-factory (Bagnoli and Lucchi 2006). Nevertheless, a recent cooperation between Italian and Chilean entomologists seems very promising (Lucchi et al. 2017). Taxonomic notes. Horstmann (1985) divided the Western Palaearctic species of the genus Campoplex in four species-groups: melanostictus (including the spurius-group), continuus, discrepans and difformis species-groups; later, the C. borealis species-group was added (Horstmann 2012). Both Campoplex capitator and C. difformis belong to "difformis" species-group, which is characterized by occipital carina joining hypostomal carina at a right angle at the base of the mandibles (i.e., occipital carina turned outwards ventrally); slender body with apically compressed metasoma; hind tibia with the median outer part from yellowish red to reddish brown, and basal part not clearly brightened; ovipositor sheath relatively long (at least as long as the hind tibia). Horstmann (1985) describes the female of C. capitator as follows in the key: body size approx. 5 mm, face wider than long, temples behind the eyes narrow, the lines (as seen in profile from above) touching the outside of the eyes and temples usually intersecting in or behind the scuto-scutellar groove, antennal segments, in the last quarter, at least as long as wide, prepectal carina medially not significantly broader than ventrolaterally and not clearly notched, hind coxae black with hind femora predominantly red, ovipositor sheath 1.4-1.7 times as long as the hind tibia, second metasomal segment not more than 1.6 times as long as wide.
The females of C. difformis, which are very similar to those of C. capitator, in Horstmann's keys are distinguished by: body size approx. 8 mm, face longer than wide, antennal segments, in the last quarter, much wider than long, and the area superomedia of propodeum wide, and not clearly separated from the area petiolaris; both areas are clearly depressed. Villemant et al. (2011) pointed out that C. capitator has often been confused with C. difformis in the past and many reports of this species on EGVM should probably be related to C. capitator. The identifications of C. difformis made by Silvestri as well as those of Catoni are to be referred to C. capitator (see above). The record of Nuzzaci and Triggiani (see C. difformis), whose specimens were identified by Horstmann, has to be considered correct.
Molecular-based studies indicate that C. capitator could be conspecific of C. formosanae Horstmann, 2012, a species reared on Enarmonia formosana in Germany Kuhlmann 2007, Hunt et al. 2008). The species was identified as C. dubitator at first, but then recognized as a valid species by Horstmann (2012). Despite molecular differences between the two species were not significant Kuhlmann 2007, Hunt et al. 2008), laboratory tests showed that C. formosanae was unable to develop on EGVM larvae and small but constant morphological characters have been found that lead to consider C. formosanae as a distinct species from C. capitator (Hunt et al. 2008, Jenner et al. 2013.
Distribution. The species is present throughout Europe up to the Caucasus and Uzbekistan, the Canary Islands and Madeira, Tunisia and Greenland (Yu et al. 2012; Zwakhals and van Achterberg 2017).
Host range. Yu et al. (2012) list 64 host species belonging to 18 different families (15 of Lepidoptera and 3 of Hymenoptera). This long list has to be verified, because in the past the specific interpretation of C. difformis was rather uncertain (see taxonomic notes under C. capitator and Horstmann 1985). The most represented family is that of Tortricidae, with 35 species (including L. botrana and E. ambiguella). Tortricids could be actually the only hosts of C. difformis, because all known hosts of the "difformis" speciesgroup belong to this family (Horstmann 1985). Archips podana (Scopoli, 1763) was the only host ascertained for this species in the work of Horstmann (1985). In Evenhuis and Vlug (1983), a hypothetical Campoplex difformis, so identified by Horstmann, is reported attacking three other tortricid species, Pandemis cerasana (Hübner, 1786), Adoxophyes orana (Fischer v. Röslerstamm, 1834) and Acleris rhombana (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775).
Diadegma armillata is particularly active against various Yponomeuta spp., attacking crop fruits, and it was introduced in 1989-1991 from France to northwestern Washington (USA), to control the apple ermine moth, Yponomeuta malinellus (Zeller, 1838) without becoming established (Unruh et al. 2003).
Ecological role. Diadegma armillata is a multivoltine species. Silvestri (1912) obtained few specimens of this wasp from EGVM cocoons in Portici (Naples). The record of Silvestri remains the only one for this species on EGVM.
Taxonomic notes. The first serious attempt to bring order in the existing confusion for the interpretation of the European species of the genus Diadegma Förster, 1869 is due to the efforts of Horstmann (1969), who revised many types of the described Table 7. Different interpretations and synonyms attributed by Horstmann (1969) and Aubert (1971) to the triplet C. difformis, C. mutabilis, and C. deficiens.

Species, named as in the original descriptions
Interpretation given by Horstmann (1969)  species. The identifications of most species were based on poor morphological characters and are unfortunately unreliable (Horstmann 1969). Diadegma armillata belongs to the subgenus Nythobia Förster, 1869, which includes group species with the seventh metasomal tergite deeply notched medially, the ovipositor sheath longer than the first metasomal tergite and shorter than the hind tibia (Horstmann 1969). The female of D. armillata is distinguished from the related species by a head with strongly narrowed temples; last article of the antennae longer than wide; propodeum with area superomedia wider than long and opened posteriorly, costulae strong; petiolar area slightly sunken and transversely striated; first metasomal segment with slightly protruding spiracles and postpetiole with parallel sides; ovipositor sheath approx. twice the length of the first metasomal segment; front and middle coxae yellow, the middle ones sometimes darkened at the base; femora and tibiae reddish yellow; hind tibia externally dark brown with white-yellow spots at the base and in the middle; metasoma variably stained with red (Horstmann 1969).
Some doubts regarding the distribution and host range of D. armillata arises from the fact that D. semiclausum (Hellen, 1949), a common parasitoid of the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus, 1758), has been misidentified with D. tibialis (Gravenhorst, 1829), which is currently a synonym of D. armillata (Horstmann 1969, Azidah et al. 2000. Under the name tibialis, D. semiclausum was introduced in 1951 from Italy to Australia to control the diamondback moth .
Host range. Diadegma tenuipes is a solitary koinobiont larval endoparasitoid of a dozen of hosts, which belong to the Lepidoptera families Coleophoridae, Momphidae, Pieridae, Plutellidae, Psychidae, Tortricidae and to the Hymenoptera families Tenthredinidae and Braconidae (Yu et al. 2012). Among these, some hosts of economic importance are indicated as the diamondback moth, the Oriental fruit moth (G. molesta), the European grape berry moth (E. ambiguella) and EGVM.
Ecological role. The only Italian records of D. tenuipes on EGVM are those of Catoni (1910 and. In the vineyards of southern Romania, Bărbuceanu and Jenser (2009) found this species, along with three other species of the same genus, attacking the overwintering generation of EGVM, with a rather low parasitization rates (0.8%). In Romania it is reported by Petcu (1978) living on E. ambiguella as well.
Taxonomic notes. Like the previous species, D. tenuipes has been assigned by Horstmann (1969) to the subgenus Nythobia. It measures approx. 6 mm in length, with the head posteriorly narrowed, propodeum with evident costulae (anterior transverse carinae), and the area superomedia shorter than twice its width; areolet of the fore wing rather large and intercepted by the second recurrent vein (2m-cu) after the middle; mesopleuron with speculum almost smooth, very shiny, the area close to mesopleural suture finely dotted; the seventh metasomal tergite dorsally deeply notched, ovipositor sheath 0.8 times the length of the hind tibia and 1.4 times that of the first metasomal tergite; body black, wings with pterostigma light brown, fore coxae light, femora and tibiae reddish yellow, posterior tibiae dark behind the base and at the apex, sides of the third metasomal tergite stained with red (Horstmann 1969).

Italian distribution of reared parasitoids. Tuscany: Del Guercio 1899.
Taxonomic notes. The limited information provided by Del Guercio (1899) does not allow designation of the two species of Nemeritis to any of the parasitoids associated to EGVM. Though Leonardi (1925) included the work of Del Guercio in his bibliography, he did not quote these species, which are not mentioned by any other author.
The species of Nemeritis have been divided by Horstmann (1975) in four groups: caudatula-and elegans-group, which parasitizes Raphidioptera, macrocentra-group which parasitizes Coleoptera (Cleridae, Malachiidae) and Lepidoptera and lissonotoides-group for which no host records are available (Horstmann 1994). Even though most of the species seem to attack concealed hosts under the bark or in bark crevices (Horstmann 1975), few species of the macrocentra-group have been recorded on moth species of economic importance, like the Mediterranean flour moth (Ephestia kuehniella Zeller, 1879), the European grain moth (Nemapogon granella (Linnaeus, 1758)) or the strawberry fruitworm (Cnephasia longana (Haworth, 1811)) (Horstmann 1994;Yu et al. 2012).
In the past, the genus Nemeritis included species of other campoplegine genera like Campoplex, Cymodusa or Venturia (Thomson 1887, Schmiedeknecht 1909. It is possible that the two species cited as Nemeritis sp. by Del Guercio (1899) are actually Venturia canescens (Gravenhorst, 1829). Schmiedeknecht, who identified ichneumonids obtained by Del Guercio (1899, page 156), refers to Venturia canescens as Nemeritis canescens in his fundamental work on European ichneumonids (Schmiedeknecht 1909(Schmiedeknecht , page 1688. At least the general habitus and wing venation in the picture of the second species (Del Guercio 1899, page 156) fit with the general aspect of V. canescens.
Ecological role. The very little information available on this species derives from Stellwaag (1928), who reports that it has been obtained by Schwangart and Catoni in April. Nevertheless, Catoni (1910, Leonardi (1925) and Boselli (1928) do not mention this species in their lists. Thompson (1946) quotes it in Austria based on an article of Schwangart (1918) who obtained it from EGVM and E. ambiguella in Trentino. Hoffmann and Michl (2003) do not cite it. The species was also obtained from EGVM in Bulgaria (Athanassov 1981, Zapryanov 1985.
Taxonomic notes. Very likely the species referred as Eulimneria crassifemur Thomson by Schwangart (1918) and Stellwaag (1928) is Sinophorus turionum (Ratzeburg, 1844). Carlson (1979) writes: "…in literature published before the description of alkae in 1928 [Sinophorus alkae (Ellinger and Sachtleben, 1928) is a junior synonym of S. turionum] and in some literature for more than ten years thereafter, the species was misidentified as crassifemur (Thomson)". Sanborne (1984), in his review of the world species of the genus Sinophorus Förster, 1869, indicates among the hosts of S. crassifemur, only the web-spinning larvae of Cephalcia sp. and Acantholyda sp. (Hymenoptera Pamphiliidae) on Pinus spp. Figure 7 Eulimneria alkae: Thompson 1946: 484. Italian distribution of reared parasitoids. The indication of this species on EGVM is due to Thompson (1946) that found it in a compendium of Hymenoptera parasitoids of European corn borer of Chu and Hsia (1937) that, unfortunately, we were not able to examine. Thompson and Parker (1928), on the basis of a record by Paillot (1924), report this species under the name of Eulimneria crassifemur Thomson, both on L. botrana and on E. ambiguella. Distribution. The species is widely distributed throughout the Palearctic region, except North Africa (Yu et al. 2012). It has been introduced several times in the United States and Canada for the biological control of the European corn borer O. nubilalis , Carlson 1979) and the pine shoot borer, R. buoliana (Syme 1971, Carlson 1979) without being established (Sanborne 1984). Its presence in the Oriental region (India and Sri Lanka) (Townes et al. 1965, Yu and has to be confirmed.
Ecological role. It is reported as one of the main parasitoids of the European corn borer in Europe (Thompson and Parker 1928) under the name Eulimneria crassifemur, and in the Northern part of Far East (Manchuria and North Korea) (Clark 1934) as Eulimneria alkae. In the case of L. botrana, it is certainly an occasional parasitoid of minor importance, perhaps a secondary adaptation to a host different from the usual ones. In the literature we found, besides those mentioned for Italy, scattered reports of his presence on EGVM, mostly under the name crassifemur in its various generic combinations: in Austria (Thompson and Parker 1930), France (Paillot 1924, Thompson andParker 1928), Bulgaria (Athanassov 1981, Zapryanov 1985, Germany (Thompson 1946) and Spain (Thompson 1946, Coscollá 1997. Another species, S. costalis (Thomson, 1887), has been recorded on EGVM in Moldavian vineyards, Romania (Pisicá andPáişescu-Bărbuceanu 2002, Bărbuceanu andJenser 2009).
Ecological role. In Italy, it has been reported on grapevine in Veneto and Piedmont. In Veneto (Marchesini and Dalla Montà 1994) it was regularly obtained from EGVM larvae of first and second generation, with rates of parasitism higher than those of C. capitator (Table 8). It has never been collected in the EGVM third generation, and it is supposed to overwinter on alternative hosts. In contrast, Colombera et al. (2001) found it in the first generation, with low levels of parasitization (lower than 1%), while C. capitator showed a more important and incisive activity. In Veneto, the species was hyperparasitized by Elasmus steffani Viggiani, 1967 (Hymenoptera Elasmidae), in turn attacked by Baryscapus nigroviolaceus (Nees, 1834) (Hymenoptera Eulophidae) and by an unidentified Pteromalus (Hymenoptera Pteromalidae) (Marchesini and Dalla Montà 1994). Villemant et al. (2011) assert that in some viticultural areas of France, T. praerogator mainly develops at the expense of S. pilleriana, while in other areas it may develop even at the expense of EGVM, E. ambiguella and Argyrotaenia ljungiana (Thunberg, 1797) (= pulchellana Haworth, 1811).

Venturia canescens (Gravenhorst, 1829)
Venturia canescens: Marchesini andDalla Montà 1994: 205, 1998: 3. Italian distribution of reared parasitoids. Veneto: Marchesini andDalla Montà 1994, 1998. Distribution. The genus Venturia Schrottky, 1902 is represented by 136 species (Yu et al. 2012), five of which are present in Europe (Zwakhals and van Achterberg 2017). Venturia canescens is considered a cosmopolitan species, its distribution being related to grain trade and other stored products. In temperate and tropic areas around the world, it is most often found in buildings where grains or flour are stored (Carlson 1979).
Ecological role. Venturia canescens was first found associated to L. botrana in Veneto by Marchesini and Dalla Montà (1994), who obtained few specimens from the third generation larvae. Thiéry et al. (2001) recorded this species in the Bordeaux region, where females attack the mature caterpillar of EGVM and the larva weaves its pupal cocoon inside or outside of the host's larval skin (Villemant et al. 2011). A Venturia sp. also emerged for 3 rd generation larvae of L. botrana in the Aegean Region of Turkey (Koclu et al. 2005). It is considered an occasional parasitoid of L. botrana, of rather marginal importance (Villemant et al. 2011). Biological, ethological, and morphological information about this species have been provided by Frilli (1965) under the name of Devorgilla canescens.
Taxonomic notes. This species, very common and with a very wide geographical distribution, has been repeatedly described with different names and assigned to different genera. The list of synonymies and generic combinations is very long and can be found in Frilli (1965), Carlson (1979), Yu and Horstmann (1997), and Yu et al. (2012).

Conclusions
In this paper the records of ichneumonid parasitoids of EGVM were analyzed, belonging to the subfamilies Anomaloninae and Campopleginae. This is the first contribution on the ichneumonids associated with this pest in Italy. Unfortunately, relatively little is known on the biology of most parasitoid species and, frequently, compilations of host-parasitoid records in literature are full of misinformations or taxonomic errors (Shaw et al. 2009). The lack of rearing protocols and/or the low accuracy in selection and managing the rearing substrates, often led to erroneous association of a parasitoid with a given host (Shaw 2017). Moreover, the endless changes occurring in taxonomy often require a critical interpretation of the names found in the literature.
Amongst the 14 taxa of ichneumonids cited in this paper, Campoplex capitator seems to be the best candidate to use in biological control programs against EGVM. Unfortunately, the knowledge on its behaviour and development is still not sufficient for efficient mass rearing of C. capitator in a bio-factory (Bagnoli and Lucchi 2006), though a recent cooperation between Italian and Chilean entomologists is promising (Lucchi et al. 2017).
So far, the host range of C. capitator is limited to few tortricids feeding on grapevine (Villemant et al. 2011, Yu et al. 2012, with the only exception represented by Ancylis mitterbacheriana (Aubert 1983). The life cicle of C. capitator is strongly synchronized with EGVM, with 2 to 4 generations per year moving southwards in Italy, and displaying often high parasitization rates (Tables 5 and 6).
The unsolved taxonomic confusion for the species of the genus Campoplex may still prevent their use in biocontrol programs and may represent an obstacle for those who are not confident with taxonomic interpretations and changes occurred in the group.
For this reason, we started to carry out a critical analysis of existing literature, conducting a direct check of voucher specimens preserved in historical collections with the aim to draw attention to possible taxonomic errors and false parasitoid-host relationships.