454 



ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS [Dec., 'l2 



a little longer than 6th; ovipositor reaching base of abdomen. Legs, 

 except coxje, entirely yellow; femora spinose only beneath. Wings 

 long, hyaline; colored stigma equalling 4th section; 5th section about 

 \y 2 times the stigma in length; 4th vein with fork. Length, 3 mm. 

 Wings 4 mm. 



Type Locality. Biscayne Bay, Fla. Mrs. Slosson, Collec- 

 tor. 



Type. Female in the Collection at the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences of Philadelphia. No. 5255. 



P. constrictus Banks. 



A male and a female from Florida possessing all the char- 

 acters of this species, according to the description of the type, 

 which is a male, with the exception of the constriction of the 

 abdomen. It seems that this peculiarity may be an abnormal- 

 ity possessed by the type specimen. The male above refer- 

 red to, is from St. Augustine and is the specimen noted under 

 P. houghi Kert. in this paper, as Dr. Hough's determination 

 of Walker's lateralis. It is no doubt Bank's species, or a very 

 close ally (I have not the type of constrictus before me). 

 The female is from Biscayne Bay, collected by Mrs. Slosson, 

 and agrees with the male with few exceptions : The front is 

 narrower at the vertex, shining black except just above the 

 antennae where it is silvery ; the antennae are acuminate. 



P. houghi Kertz. (lateralis Walk. non. Macq.). 



femoratus Cress. Tr. Am. Ent. Soc., XXXVI, 302, 1911. 



As is generally the case, little or no satisfaction can be de- 

 rived from the study of Walker's descriptions, and so we 

 find, in this family, that his description of lateralis applies 

 equally well to several species having yellow legs and shining 

 abdomen. In my former paper (4) I considered Johnson's 

 pallipes to be the same as Walker's species, but Mr. Johnson 

 would not have it so, and therefore he loaned me the type of 

 his species, also a specimen from St. Augustine, Florida, which 

 he had, and which he said had been examined by Dr. Hough 

 and Mr. Coquillett, and considered by them to be lateralis. 

 Of course, having this specimen before him as lateralis, he 

 was right in his denials. The most important difference be- 



