@invertebratist can you please explain why returning this species under the genus Praestochrysis is justified. This species was transferred to Praestochrysis by Kimsey and Bohart (1991) in their global revision and from that study this interpretation is widely followed. However, more recently Rosa et al. (Rosa P, Wei N, Feng J, Xu Z (2016) Revision of the genus Trichrysis Lichtenstein, 1876 from China, with description of three new species (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 63(1): 109-136. https://doi.org/10.3897/dez.63.7347) treat this species under Trichrysis and justify this treatment in their publication. Moreover Kimsey and Bohart's treatment (in genus Praestochrysis) was not followed in all publications (for example: Linsenmaier, 1994 or Madl and Rosa, 2012). Unless there is another more recent study reanalyzing the situation I suggest following the treatment of most recent study (Rosa et al, 2016) and keeping the species in the genus Trichrysis.
Unintended disagreements occur when a parent (B) is
thinned by swapping a child (E) to another part of the
taxonomic tree, resulting in existing IDs of the parent being interpreted
as disagreements with existing IDs of the swapped child.
Identification
ID 2 of taxon E will be an unintended disagreement with ID 1 of taxon B after the taxon swap
If thinning a parent results in more than 10 unintended disagreements, you
should split the parent after swapping the child to replace existing IDs
of the parent (B) with IDs that don't disagree.
@invertebratist can you please explain why returning this species under the genus Praestochrysis is justified. This species was transferred to Praestochrysis by Kimsey and Bohart (1991) in their global revision and from that study this interpretation is widely followed. However, more recently Rosa et al. (Rosa P, Wei N, Feng J, Xu Z (2016) Revision of the genus Trichrysis Lichtenstein, 1876 from China, with description of three new species (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 63(1): 109-136. https://doi.org/10.3897/dez.63.7347) treat this species under Trichrysis and justify this treatment in their publication. Moreover Kimsey and Bohart's treatment (in genus Praestochrysis) was not followed in all publications (for example: Linsenmaier, 1994 or Madl and Rosa, 2012). Unless there is another more recent study reanalyzing the situation I suggest following the treatment of most recent study (Rosa et al, 2016) and keeping the species in the genus Trichrysis.