THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 191 



species, but the insufficient material seemed to make it more prudent to 

 unite them provisionally. Both species are very similar, and the only 

 palpable difference is the hind margin of the hind wings sinuated in the 

 apical half of M. mob His, and convex in M. immaculatus. I have raised 

 myself both species, and have the full grown larva? in alcohol. 



(To be Continued.) 



THE CHALCID GENUS RILEYA. 



BY L. O. HOWARD, WASHINGTON, D. C. 



An interesting interference in the adoption of the generic name Rileya 

 has recently taken place between Mr. Ashmead and myself, and, as I 

 am of the opinion that this name should apply to the genus of Encyrtina? 

 defined by myself, rather than to the genus of Eurytominaj defined by Mr. 

 Ashmead, I state in this note the circumstances of the interference, and 

 print in full the paper in which my description occurred. 



At the meeting of the Entomological Society of Washington, held June 

 7, 1887, I read the paper in question and handed the manuscript, after 

 reading, to Mr. Smith, the Secretary, with the request that he publish the 

 generic description in full in his abstract of our proceedings in Entomo- 

 logica Americana. June 9 this periodical for June was received, and I 

 found upon reading Mr. Ashmead's " revised generic table of the Eury- 

 tominae," published upon pages 41 to 43, that he had decided to use the 

 same name for a genus of that sub-family. The name is there given, not 

 as a new genus, but as one already described, and the few words given to 

 it in the table fail to sufficiently characterize it. Noting these points, I 

 did not recall my description from Mr. Smith, and it was published in the 

 July number of the same periodical (received July 5). 1 inferred from 

 the fact that Mr. Ashmead entered the genus as " Rileya Ashm.," and not 

 " Rileya n. g.," that his description had been sent away for publication, 

 but had not appeared, and this inference was shown to be correct when 

 upon July 14, first copies were received of Bulletin No. 3 of the Kansas 

 Experiment Station, which contained in an appendix Mr. Ashmead's full 

 description of this genus. 



I am individually inclined to think, therefore, that as Mr. Ashmead 



