346 F.NTOMOLOliK'AL NEWS [Oct., 'lO 



It is a great deal easier to criticize work done by others than 

 to do the work oneself. It is, however, not with the idea of 

 criticizing that the following notes, on this admirable paper of 

 Mr. Rowland E. Turner, and remarks on Ashmeadian genera 

 are given. W. H. Ashmead was the first to attempt a detailed 

 classification of the genera of Thynnidae and two of his genera 

 were founded on species only characterized in his generic tables. 

 These genera have been treated differently by Mr. Turner, but 

 in neither case have they been characterized correctly. For this, 

 one cannot blame Mr. Turner. It is hoped that the following 

 notes will put the Ashmeadian genera on a firmer basis. 



In some few cases the ruling of the International Committee 

 on Zoological Nomenclature has not been followed by Mr. 

 Turner. To these cases attention will be called and what is be- 

 lieved to be a correct interpretation given. 



It will be noted that in certain cases the synonyms have been 

 omitted from the list of species so the synonymy is not com- 

 plete. The following omissions are to be noted : 



Agriomyia (Tachynomyia) spinolae Guerin, (a species nam- 

 ed as the genotype of Tachynomyia, by Ashmead), and Thyn- 

 nus fcrindus Erichs. should be placed as synonyms of Tacliv- 

 nomyia abdoininalis Guerin, p. 27. Thynnus plagiatus Sm. 

 should be included in the synonymy of Encyrtothynnus maculi- 

 pennis (Guerin), p. 25. 



Thynnus (Elaphroptcra) holomelas Andre should be includ- 

 ed as a synonym of Elaphroptera intaminata (Smith), p. 23. 



The naming of a described species as a type of a new genus 

 without telling the genus in which it was originally described, 

 causes trouble for other workers. 



Some of the characters given in the generic keys are not as 

 definite as one would like, and it is hoped that in a later paper 

 Mr. Turner will tell us what is "very near" and what is "not 

 very near" (p. 15, category 30). A comparison between the 

 length of the second transverse cubitus and the distance of the 

 second recurrent from it would be very serviceable here. "Ven- 

 tral aspect" instead of "beneath" (first part of category 37, p. 

 16), would avoid ambiguity. Yet these are minor points, and 



