PROC. ENT. SOC. WASH., VOL. 23, NO. 7, OCTOBER, 1921 169 



Hooker 1 places this among the "Misplaced and Unrecognized 

 Species, etc.," and no other writer appears to have recognized 

 it. 



A female in the National Collection determined, we believe 

 correctly, by Ashmead as Campoplex xanthogaster Brulle agrees 

 in every respect with Say's description and is undoubtedly this 

 species. 



Neotype. The above mentioned female specimen. 



54. (Ophion) Exochus emarginatus (Say). 



Ophion emarginatus Say, Contrib. Muclur. Lye. Phila., vol. 1, 1828, p. 76 



(Leconte ed., vol. 1, p. 380). 

 Anomalon emarginatus Say, Boston Journ. Nat. Hist., vol. 1, 1835, p. 245, 



(Leconte ed., vol. 2, p. 699). 



Davis 2 referred this species to the Orthocentrine genus 

 Tapinops Foerster and synonymized with it Exochisc us pusillus 

 Walsh, Alomyia abdominalis Provancher, and Orthocentrus 

 caUfornicus Ashmead. Ashmead 3 called attention to Say's 

 second reference to the species and showed that Davis was in 

 error in his synonymy, the areolet being absent in Say's species, 

 which would exclude it from Tapinops. Ashmead also states 

 ;< I have recognized Say's species; it does not even belong to this 

 tribe (Octhocentrini) but belongs to a genus in the next tribe or 

 the "Exochini." The present writers had arrived at the same 

 conclusion independently. Ashmead did not indicate by further 

 statement or by labelled specimen what he recognized as Say's 

 species. Nor have the writers been able to determine exactly 

 the species to which Say's name should be assigned, but that it is 

 an Exochus resembling Exochus laevis Cresson there appears to 

 be no room for doubt. 



55. (Ophion) Paniscus geminatus (Say). 



Ophion geminatus Say, Contrib. Maclur. Lye. Phila., vol. 1, 1828, p. 76 (Leconte 



ed., vol. 1, p. 379). 

 Paniscus geminatus Norton, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., vol. 1, 1863, p. 364. 



Norton remarked that there appeared to be two sizes of the 

 species which he was unable to separate. Aside from the 

 question of size there appear to be several species of true 

 Paniscus, not to mention the genus Para&atus, confused in the 

 National Collection under this name. In order to fix the species 

 it seems advisable to designate a neotype combining at least 

 the apparently most nearly constant characters mentioned by 



!Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., vol. 38, 1912, p. 159. 

 Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., vol. 24, 1897, p. 222. 

 3 Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., vol. 4, 1902, p. 230. 



