,j()8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 93 



In 1913, Kurdjumov " published the results of his extensive re- 

 searches on Tetrastichus and its allies. His conclusions were based 

 on a careful study of almost all the types involved, so these conclusions 

 may be accepted without question. Kurdjumov showed that Tri- 

 chaporus is a synonym of Astichus Foerster (belonging in the sub- 

 family Entedoninae) , and Gyrolasia is the same as Pteroptrix West- 

 wood (a member of the subfamily Aphelininae). He also considered 

 Syntomosphyrum, Ceranisus, and Baryxcapus to be synonyms of Tetra- 

 stichus. He resurrected the genus Geniocerus, however, for those 

 species, formerly placed in Tetrastichus, which have more than one 

 dorsal bristle on the submarginal vein of the forewing, and restricted 

 Tetrastichus to those species with but one dorsal bristle. He used the 

 name Aprostocetus for those species having a long, exserted ovipositor. 

 Kurdjumov confirmed the fact that Cirrospilus attains is a synonym 

 of Eulophus miser, and, since he presumably saw the types of both 

 species, this synonymy may be accepted without further question. 



The following year, Gahan published a key to the few Nearctic 

 species then known to him that would be referable to the genus Tetra- 

 stichus as defined by Kurdjumov. 17 Crawford 18 was of the opinion 

 that Kurdjumov's definition of Tetrastichus and Geniocerus was un- 

 satisfactory but that nothing better was available. Since that time, 

 the genus Geniocerus has been used by few authors, but, for the rest, 

 Kurdjumov's findings have been quite generally followed. 



Beginning in 1912 and for several }'ears following, A. A. Girault 

 published descriptions of numerous new genera and species of Tetra- 

 stich inae, many of which must be considered in treating Tetrastichus 

 in the Xearctic region. Girault based his work almost entirely on 

 Ashmead's classification. Many of Girault's generic names were pro- 

 posed originally for Australian species, but a large number of these 

 genera were used by him when he later described species from North 

 America. As authentic material of the genotypes of these genera is 

 not available, it is difficult to form reliable conclusions regarding their 

 validity. A study of the North American species that he placed in 

 these genera leads to the conclusion that many of them should be 

 considered as synonyms of Tetrastichus^ but study of the genotypes 

 themselves very well might show that at least some of them should be 

 retained for Australian and other non-Nearctic species. Some of 

 Girault's genera, however, can safely be synonymized after studying 

 material he referred to them; others must be left in abeyance for the 

 time being. 



Girault was not always consistent in his treatment of his genera. 

 For example, he described the genus Aprostoceroloidcs in his first ac- 



"' Russ. Ent. Ol.ozr. (Rev. Russo Ent.), vol. 13, p. 242, 1913. 

 !r Proc. T\ S. Nat. Mas., vol. 48, p. 106, 1914. 

 " Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 48, p. 584, 1915. 



