I would exercise caution in using this work. Errors not only abound but are often so egregious as to question whether the authors have ever seen or read about many of the species they illustrate and describe.

Example errata:

• Entry 78: Chrysopa carnia is not only misspelled but was an obsolete combination by 4 years at the time of publication.
• Entry 78: Without knowing where images identified as "Chrysopa carnia" were taken, I'm unable to substantiate which species of Chrysoperla they might be.
• Entry 79: Brachynemurus does not make pit traps as claimed.
• Entry 79: The image identified as B. ferox is misidentified as the species doesn't have pale pterostigmas.
• Entry 217: Atlides halesus is erroneously stated to eat live oak, western sycamore, and desert ironwood rather than mistletoe that grows on the aforementioned species.
• Entry 264: The image identified as Acantholyda erythrocephala is some other Pamphiliidae. This should have been impossible to misidentify this way.
• Entry 266: The image identified as Macrophya trisyllaba is probably Tenthredo grandis given the thick temples.
• Entry 286: The image identified as Rhyssa lineolata isn't even Rhyssinae given the lack of horn at the apex of the metasoma should have made it impossible to misidentify this way.
• Entry 269: The upper image identified as Apanteles sp. isn't even Microgastrinae. The incongruous morphology should have made it impossible to misidentify this way.
• Entry 274: The image identified as Dasymutilla occidentalis is actually D. cressoni. The photo isn't even of a species found in the US.
• Entry 274: The recognition marks for D. occidentalis are hardly even useful for recognizing the genus, much less species.
• Entry 281: The image identified as Camponotus pensylvanicus is misidentified.
• Entry 281: Recognision marks for C. pensylvanicus are hardly even useful for recognizing the genus and are erroneous for recognizing the species.
• Entry 283: The image identified as Eumenes fraternus is actually Euodynerus megaera. The strong differences in abdominal morphology should have made it impossible to misidentify this way.
• Entry 283: The recognition marks for E. fraternus are hardly even useful for recognizing the genus, much less species.
• Entry 285: The image identified as Polistes hunteri (P. dorsalis) is actually P. exclamans.
• Entry 287: I suspect that the image identified as P. formosa (P. grossa) is misidentified but am having difficulty discerning necessary traits from the photo.
• Entry 287: The claim that P. formosa may have the most painful sting is contradicted by Schmidt's work, in which Paraponera clavata is the only species placed as 4+ and in which several species are given a rank of 4.
• Entry 292: The claims that Sceliphron caementarium has a painful sting are contradicted by Schmidt's work, in which it's only given a rank of 1.
• Entry 294: The image identified as Sphecius speciousus appears to actually be S. grandis.
• Entry 295: The images identified as Bembix americana are both misidentified. These seem to actually be two different species of Steniolia.
• Entry 296: The image identified as Eucerceris canaliculata is misidentified as it lacks the median transverse depressions that help characterize Eucerceris.