OF WASHINGTON. VOLUME XIX, 1917 163 



the Mesoleptini, his notes state, it runs in Davis' key to Zemiodes 

 Foerster or Clepsiporthus Foerster, hut is apparently neither of the 

 species listed thereunder. 



In 1882 Provancher again used the name Mesoleptus mriabilis, 

 this time for another species, which Mr. Rohwer is of the opin- 

 ion is the same as Euryproctus sentiri* Davis. In arriving at 

 this conclusion Mr. Rohwer ran the- Provancher type in Davis' 

 key to the Mesoleptini and compared it with the original descrip- 

 tion of E. sentiris. Provancher's name, being preoccupied in 

 Mesoleptus, will, if it is the same as E. sentiris, have to give way 

 to Davis' name and the species be known as Euryproctus sentiris 

 Davis. 



In the National Museum is a specimen from Meklenburg, 

 Germany, labelled Phidias aciculatus Vollenhoven, genotype of 

 Phidias Vollenljoven, which specimen is congeneric with the 

 species under discussion. If this specimen is correctly determined, 

 which appears doubtful, Phidias Vollenhoven must fall as a synon- 

 nym of Diacritics Foerster (Davis). I have not seen the genotype 

 of Plectiscidea Viereck, but if his P. contentionis is correctly re- 

 ferred to the genus it too must be synonymous with Diacritics. 



As for the systematic position of Diacritus, it can certainly not 

 be left, where Foerster placed it, in the Phaeogenini. Practically 

 the only way in which it resembles the other genera of that tribe 

 is in the possession of lunulae on the tergites, and it is most cer- 

 tain that the species on which Foerster based his genus is not 

 congeneric with the genotype. The genus, however, must follow 

 its type species, and it is the opinion of the writer that the more 

 prominent characteristics of the genus, especially the very nar- 

 row first abdominal segment with its prominent spiracles, ally 

 it more closely with certain genera in the Plectiscini than with 

 any other group. In Foerster's key to his family Plectiscoidae 

 it runs d'rectly to Blapticus Foerster, but differs markedly from 

 the description of that genus. If its possession of an areolet is 

 ignored it runs to Entelechia Foerster, and, from the description 

 of that genus, is evidently rather closely allied to it. 



Genus Diacritus Foerster (Davis). 



Head broader than thorax; eyes large, nearly parallel within; temples 

 strongly sloping; occipital carina strong: malar space somewhat shorter 

 than basal width of mandible; face much wider than long, .slightly elevated 

 in middle; clypeus separated, weakly convex, much broader than long, 

 subtruncate at apex; antenae nearly as long as body, first joint of nagellum 

 very long, much longer than second, apical joint in female large, twice as 

 long as penultimate, in male, nagellum tapering toward apex; notauli deep. 

 meeting on disk of mesoscutum, prescutum gibbous; prepectal carina very 

 strong and complete; propodeum longer than combined height of pmpo- 



