Superfamily ICHNEUMONOIDEA 317 



ly, most of the replacement names are unavailable by virtue of having been proposed to replace 

 senior homonyms. 



Gravenhorst (1829), on the other hand, attempted to redefine the Fabrician genera of Ichneu- 

 monidae and give them phyletic meaning by excluding all but a few of the originally included 

 species and adding others. With the exception of Gelis Thunberg (1827), Gravenhorst also util- 

 ized the generic names which had been proposed by other authors who had preceded him. 

 Although Gravenhorst's generic nomenclature was not altogether sound with respect to present 

 rules (see Townes, 1969, p. 10), many of the nomenclatural problems which surfaced in the early 

 part of the 20th Century were not caused by anything Gravenhorst did (although he is culpable 

 in the cases of Bassus and Xorides), and could not have been avoided by anything he could have 

 foreseen. In the case of Pimpla, Gravenhorst (1819) did not indicate the precise group of species 

 for which he would use the name in his familial (our generic) sense; therefore, Curtis (1828) 

 could not have known that his choice of type-species would not agree with Gravenhorst's (1829) 

 usage. 



Townes (1959) described the general condition of the Gravenhorst collection. Additional infor- 

 mation on the collection and its labeling were published by Townes (1965). 



Foerster (1868) was the next person to publish a major work dealing with the entire family. 

 All of the 489 genera newly described in his 1868 paper had no included species. Foerster in- 

 tended that his generic names would apply to the European fauna, but the first included species, 

 European or otherwise became the only ones eligible for selection as type-species. In many cases 

 the type-species fixation was by subsequent monotypy (Intematl. Code Zool. Nomencl., art. 69 

 [A] [ii] [2]). Perkins (1962) dealt with the type-species of the Foerster genera, and except for 

 the few cases in which corrections are made here or elsewhere, or in which species have been 

 referred to Foerster genera since 1962, the type-species I have cited are those cited by Perkins. 



Holmgren, Cresson, and Provancher were contemporaries who between 1855 and 1890 

 published many descriptions of new species of Ichneumonidae, and, in the case of Holmgren, 

 many new genera also. The majority of the new species described by Cresson are Nearctic. 

 Cresson's (1887) synopsis of Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico included keys to the sub- 

 families and genera of Ichneumonidae and a catalog of the species and their synonyms. Cresson 

 (1916) published a list of species he had described, and he indicated which single specimen was to 

 be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had 

 described a species from more than one specimen. His 1916 paper also included a list of all the 

 papers he had published on Hymenoptera, but there is no published list which excludes those 

 that do not involve Ichneumonidae. Cresson's (1928) paper (published posthumously) on the 

 types of other authors concerns only those to be found in the collection at the Academy of Natu- 

 ral Sciences of Philadelphia. Therefore, in cases where all the type material of a given species 

 was not deposited at the A. N. S. P., Cresson's citations of individual specimens may not con- 

 stitute lectotype selection. It is apparent, however, that they were accepted as such by Townes 

 (1944, 1945) and in cases where only one syntype (or only one syntype from the locality indicated 

 as the type locality) was deposited at the A. N. S. P., "Townes may technically be the lectotype 

 selector. 



Provancher dealt mostly with the Fauna of Canada, most particularly with that of Quebec. He 

 published most of his original descriptions in "le Naturaliste canadien," but in 1883 published a 

 compilation of them. Additions and corrections to the ichneumonid parts of this 1883 compilation 

 were published by Provancher (1886, 1888, 1889). Gahan and Rohwer (1917, 1918) selected lecto- 

 types for many of Provancher's Hymenoptera (except bees). Barron (1975) restudied the Ichneu- 

 monidae in the Provancher collections. He located some types not found by Gahan and Rohwer 

 and in some cases rejected lectotypes that Gahan and Rohwer had selected. In most cases, Bar- 

 ron's grounds for rejecting particular Gahan and Rohwer lectotypes seem valid, but in a number 

 of the cases there was no proof that the Gahan and Rohwer lectotypes had not been syntypes. In 

 those cases (which I discuss under the species in question) I have regarded the Gahan and 

 Rohwer lectotypes as being valid. Barron discussed Provancher's life, collections., and 

 methodology; he also tabulated Provancher's publications on Ichneumonidae (p. 414). 



Holmgren dealt mainly with the fauna of Sweden, but did describe six species from California 

 (Holmgren, 1869a) and seven from Greenland (Holmgren, 1869b, 1872). According to information 

 published by Persson (1971) all of the California species were probably collected in the vicinity 

 of San Francisco. 



Thomson published on Ichneumonidae between 1783 and 1897, mostly in his "Opuscula en- 



