316 Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico 



aspects of these cases and have found that Townes' statements about their history are correct 

 (see Hemming, 1943). I also learned that Opinion 135, which pertains to suppression of the 

 names of Jurine which were vaUdated in 1801 (including Cryptus), has no vaUdity on the same 

 grounds. However, in 1973 I discovered that Opinion 135 is of no consequence with respect to 

 the homonymy of Cryptus Fabricius (1804) because the latter would be preoccupied by Cryptus 

 Panzer (1804) if Cryptus Jurine (1801) had been suppressed. The fact that Panzer's usage of the 

 name Cryptus predates the Fabrician usage is demonstrated by Fabricius' (1804, p. 35) citation 

 of fascicle 88 of Panzer's "Faunae insectorum Germanicae", wherein Panzer (1804) validated the 

 name Cryptus segmentarius, which is the type-species of Cryptus Jurine by subsequent 

 monotypy and which is a synonym of Arge rustica (Linnaeus). After pondering this matter for a 

 considerable time, I decided to use the name Cryptus Fabricius in the present catalog in spite of 

 its homonymy for the following reasons: (1) the name Cryptus Jurine was never applied more 

 than sparingly to sawflies of the genus Arge for a variety of reasons, the principal ones being 

 the obscurity of the publication in which Cryptus Jurine (1801) appeared and the fact that most 

 authors thought the name had been validated only by Jurine (1807) and treated it either as a ju- 

 nior homonym of Cryptus Fabricius or a junior synonym of Hylotomma (itself a junior synonym 

 of Arge); (2) neither Cryptus Jurine nor Cryptus Panzer are likely to be hereafter treated as 

 available names by specialists working on Symphyta; (3) the historic significance of the names 

 Cryptus and Cryptinae for ichneumonology is secondary only to that of Ichneumon and Ichneu- 

 monidae. 



Fitton and Gauld (1976, p. 249) apparently made independent discovery of the Fabrician cita- 

 tion of Panzer (1804, fasc. 88), and opted in favor of the group name Hemitelinae. I am not cer- 

 tain that the latter will gain wide acceptance among ichneumonid workers, a question which also 

 influenced my decision in favor of Cryptus and Cryptinae. In any event, the paper of Fitton and 

 Gauld did not appear untU after the computerization of my manuscript for the Cryptinae, and it 

 is not feasible for me to now alter my decision. 



I have applied the names Ichneumon and Pimpla according to the type-species designations 

 of Curtis (1828 and 1839, respectively). I regard application of the names Pimpla Fabricius 

 (1804) and Pimplini to Coccygomimus and Echthromorphini, respectively (in accordance with 

 the illegal Opinion 159), as a nomenclatural absurdity of incredible magnitude. Fabricius placed 

 no species of Coccygomimus in Pimpla; he invariably placed them in Cryptus in 1804. Thus 

 Ichneumon instigator Fabricius (the type-species of Pimpla according to Opinion 159) was not 

 one of the species which Fabricius had included in Pimpla. 



I regard Ephialtes Schrank (1802, p. 316) as an available name. Schrank's partial misidentifica- 

 tion of the type-species (see his p. 269-270 description of Ichneumon compunctor Unnaeus) 

 makes it a case analogous to that of his genus Paniscus (see introductory discussion of Netelia), 

 except for the fact that Paniscus is suppressed as a junior synonym of Ophion. 



Questions of synonymy of supergeneric names have here been decided in favor of the oldest 

 available supergeneric names having type-genera which are currently valid (i.e. not suppressed 

 as junior objective or subjective synonyms). The resultant usage is largely in agreement with 

 that in the paper by Fitton and Gauld (1976) on the ichneumonid supergeneric names other than 

 those of Ichneumoninae. The most noteworthy differences between their usages and mine per- 

 tain to Ephialtini (not used here), Pimplini, and names based upon Cryptus. 



The following is a discussion of some of the most important publications on Ichneumonidae 

 pertinent to studies of the Nearctic fauna; to a limited extent, some of the authors are also 

 discussed. Biographical data on these and additional authors who published on Ichneumonidae 

 were compUed by Sachtleben (1962b, p. 720-726). 



The first real specialist to study Ichmeumonidae was Gravenhorst (my reference to him as an 

 ichneumonid speciahst should not be misconstrued; he is also well known for his taxonomic work 

 on certain Coleoptera, and he published on subjects other than entomology). In 1815 Graven- 

 horst published the first sizeable taxonomic paper that dealt strictly with Ichneumonidae. In 

 1819 he published a conspectus (i.e. outline) of the 1829 work that is the foundation for modern 

 ichneumonology. The appearance of the latter work was preceded by Gravenhorst's (1820) paper 

 on the ichneumonids of the Italian Piedmont and by Thunberg's (1822, 1824) revision of 

 "Ichneumonidea," (Ichneumonoidea, Gasteruptiidae, and Aulacidae). Thunberg's revision was 

 based largely upon Fabricius (1804), but the nine generic names which Fabricius had proposed 

 for the species Thunberg treated were suppressed by Thunberg as synonyms of Ichneumon. 

 This resulted in much homonymy, and Thunberg proposed many replacement names. Fortunate- 



