THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. Si") 



yellow line ; below this, or the substigmatal space, the body is flesh color. 

 Head shining black. There are a few gray hairs scattered over the body. 



These larvae were found feeding on willows through the most of Sep- 

 tember, resting in an enclosure formed of several leaves fastened together 

 at the ends of twigs, but I did not find more than half a dozen in a nest. 

 Those put in breeding cages pupated before the middle of October, mostly 

 in the corners of the boxes. The first hatched x\pril 22, 1881, the last 

 May 8. I took one fresh specimen that had flown to light May 28. 



This form is related to Inclusa Hub. and Ornata G. & R., more nearly 

 to the latter in size and coloration, but differs from both in several par- 

 ticulars. Besides size and color, it differs from Inclusa in the coloring 

 of its larva. It differs from Ornata in the color of the scales sprinkled 

 over the primaries, the color of the spots outside the fourth line, and the 

 continuance of that line, as it is not here partially obsolete opposite the 

 disc, as well as in some other points. The apices are no more produced 

 than in Indnsa, nor is the costa more bent. 



ON THE CHALCIDID^ OF FLORIDA. 



(Paper No. 2.) 



BY WM. H. ASHMEAD, JACKSONVILLE, FLA. 



Genus Eupelmus, Dalman. 



Prof. Westwood, in his Generic Synopsis, characterizes this genus as 

 follows : " Antennae 13-jointed, clavate, third and fourth joints minute ; 

 club ovate ; thorax long-ovate ; collar moderate ; thorax depressed in the 

 middle ; abdomen long-ovate ; ovipositor exserted, wings with stigmal 

 branch distant from the union of the subcostal nerve and the costa." 



In view of the recent controversy between Prof. Riley and Mr. 

 Howard, in regard to this genus and the genus A?itigaster of Walsh, I 

 deem it advisable to publish the above from Westwood, verbatim et 

 literatum. Just beginning my entomological studies, I do not pretend to 

 take issue with either of these gentlemen, but merely desire to draw their 

 attention to the ovipositor in this genus, which both seem to have entirely 

 overlooked, and which, according to above description, is exseited. 



Now, I have bred a great many specimens of Antigaster mirabilis from 

 eggs of Microcentris retitiervis, and neither this sjiecies nor those recently 



