iS 



532 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 93 



slightly exceeding, level of vertex; scape almost three times as long 

 as pedicel, second funicle segment slightly longer than first or third, 



club as long as scape; length of malar space two-thirds as great as 

 height of compound eye: postocellar line slightly less than twice as 

 long as ocellocnlar. Pronotum with a slight femoral groove, much 

 as in figure 17, e; one row of bristles present at each lateral margin 

 of mesopraescutum, this sclerite one-fifth wider than long; submargi- 

 nal vein of forewing bearing one dorsal bristle: hindwing blunt at 

 apex, width of fringe at posterior margin one-sixth as great as width 

 of wing at hamuli. Propodeum strongly shagreened, its mesal length 

 one-third as great as length of mesoscutellum, both median and par- 

 aspiracular carinae present ; spiracles almost touching anterior margin 

 of propodeum; gaster and thorax equal in length.: gaster flattened at 

 apex, cerci and spiracles of eighth segment ventral, rather than lateral 

 or dorsal in position, apex of ovipositor sheaths not reaching apex of 

 abdomen (fig. 21, i). 



J/«fc— Length, 1.6 mm. First funicle segment slightly longer than 

 pedicel, and shorter than second segment, third and fourth segment 

 equal in length and each one-fourth longer than second; gaster slightly 

 shorter than thorax. The male is extremely rare. 



Type locality. — Southeastern Canada. 



Types.— U.S.N.M. No. 11982. 



Hosts. — Larvae of sawflies, Arge dulriaria (Say). A. pectoralis 

 (Leach), (?) Ncodiprion sp. 



Distribution— Illinois, Kentucky. Maryland. Maine. Manitoba. New 

 Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec. Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia. 



Remarks. — This species is evidently quite closely related to the 

 European species, T. atroeoemleus (Nees), which also parasitizes Arge 

 larvae. 



TETRASTICH US ASPARAGI Crawford 



Figukes 17. h; IS, b; 20, g 



Tetrastich its asparagi Crawford, Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington, vol. 11, p. 150, 

 1909.— Febnald, Rep. State Ent. Massachusetts, No. 22 (2), p. 73, 1910.— How- 

 ard, Jonrn. Econ. Ent., vol. 3, p. 25S, 1910.— Russell and Johnston. Journ. 

 Eeon. Ent., vol. 5, p. 429, 1912.— Johnston. Journ. Agr. Res., vol. 4. p. 303, 

 191 .V— Ross, Agr. Gaz. Canada, vol. 2, p. 1055, 1915; Ann. Rep. Ent. Soc. Onta- 

 rio No. 46, p. 23, 1916.— Girault, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 51. p. 128, 1916 — 

 Hewitt, Canada Dept. Agr. Dominion Ent. Rep., 1917, p. 56. — Chittenden, 

 U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bull. 837. p. 8, 1917.— Paiixot, Ann. Epiphyt, vol. 4, 

 p. 335, 1917.— Ross and Caesar, Ann. Rep. Ent. Soc. Ontario, No. 50, p. 101, 

 1920.— Britton, Connecticut State Agr. Exp. Stat. Bull. 234, p. 174, 1922.— 

 Chittenden, Oregon Board Hort. Bienn. Rep. No. 17, p. 187, 1923.— Felt, Rep. 

 State Ent. Now York, No. 35, p. 92, 1923.— Leonard, New York (Cornell) 

 Agr. Exp. Stat. Mem. 101, p. 984, 1 928.— Drake, Iowa Agr. Exp. Stat. Circ. 134, 

 p. 5, 1932.— Beaulne, Quebec Soc. Protect. Plants Ann. Rep., 1935, p. 59 — 

 Burks, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., vol. 31, p. 159, 1938. 



