4BT.15. REVISION OF ICHNEUMOX-PLIES MUESEBEGK. 43 



The description given by Curtis is clearly that of an Af^antcles. 

 Apparently the species falls close to yakutatensis Ashmead. 



MICROGASTER BISSTiGMATA Say. 

 Microgaster hisstiginata Say, Boston Journ. Nat. Hist., vol. 1, 183G, p. 204. 



Type. — Lost. 



Indiana. 



This is certainly not a Microgaster, since the description states 

 that the radial vein is distinct and complete. It may very well be 

 an Orgilus. 



(MICROGASTER TUCKERI Vierock)=MICROPLITIS MATURUS Weed. 



Mici-oplitis matiirus Weed, Trans. Amer. Ent. See, vol. 15, 1888, p. 294. 

 Microgaster tuelceri Yiereck, Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., vol. 19, 1905, p. 274. 



Tyije. — In the University of Kansas. 



Douglas County, Kansas. 



I have not seen the type of tuckeri, but Mr. Gahan, in notes made 

 on an examination of the type several years ago, states that it is 

 a Micropliiis; and according to these notes and Viereck's descrip- 

 tion, the species agrees in every detail with inatums Weed. 



Genus MICROPLITIS Foerster. 



Microplitis Foerster. Verh. der Naturli. Ver. preuss. Eheinl., vol. 19, 1862, 

 p. 245. Genotype. — Microgaster sordipes Nees (Monobasic). 



Distinguished from Microgaster and Apanteles by the characters 

 given in the key to genera. Most of the species are properly placed 

 in this genus without difficulty. They have the characters men- 

 tioned well-marked, and also have a distinct habitus and are usually 

 of smaller size, but several species, such as cannatus, perplexus, 

 coloradensis, and stigviaticus must be very carefully studied before 

 they can be referred to Microplitis. 



In habits the members of this genus are similar to the species of 

 Apanteles and Microgaster. All attack lepidopterous larvae, some 

 living as solitary, others as gregarious, parasites within the body of 

 the host. The genus as a whole is probably somewhat more beneficial 

 than Microgaster, although it has but few more species, in North 

 America. IS^octuid larvae, and more particularly the cutworms, ap- 

 pear to be especially subject to the attacks of species of Microj^Utis. 



For the most part the cocoons are different from those of Apanteles 

 and Microgaster. They are usually parchment-like, often fluted or 

 ribbed, always buff, brown, gray, or gTeenish in color, and without 

 loose silk. No Microgaster cocoon known to me resembles those of 

 Microplitis, and the cocoons of only a few species of Apanteles can 

 be confused with them. 



