316 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. i06 



Koman (1915, pp. 5-8) put Brachycyrtus in the Ophioninae. He 

 considered it closely related to the Cremastini because of the emar- 

 ginate eyes, short abscissula of the hind^\^ng, and elongate ovipositor. 

 He also mentioned the simiLirity of the mandibles of Brachycyrtus to 

 these of bassine (Diplazoninae) and banchine genera. 



Cushman (1919, p. 543) estabHshed the tribe Proterocryptini for 

 Proterocryptus Ashmead, a s3mon3-m of Brachycyrtus, and placed the 

 new tribe in the Tryphoninae. He compared it with Sphinctus 

 Gravenhorst. 



Ceballos (1942, pp. 120-121) put Brachycyrtus in the tribe Sphinc- 

 tmi (Tryphoninae) on the basis of the short, high, globose thorax, 

 the somewhat apically thickened antennae, and the club-shaped 

 abdomen with slender petiole. 



Townes (1944-1945, pp. 22, 756) placed Brachycyrtus under the 

 heading "Genera of Uncertain Subfamily," but in 1951 (p. 203) he 

 put the genus in the tribe Brachycyrtini, subfamily Pimplinae. No 

 reasons were given. 



Cushman (1936) wrote that "in general form of head and thorax 

 the species are similar to the species of Chnjsopoctonus ." This state- 

 ment was made in his discussion of the fu'st host record {Chrysopa sp.) 

 for the genus. Chrysopoctonus Cushman is considered a synonym of 

 Otacustes Foerster. 



My own tendency was to look for the species in the Pimplinae or 

 Crj^tinae when they came infrequently to me for identification. In 

 my opinion the resemblance to the Sphinctini and Cremastini is super- 

 ficial. Certainly the characters upon which Koman based his placement 

 in the Ophioninae are also found in the Pimplinae. Even the short 

 abscissula of the hindwing is found in the pimpline genera Acrodactyla 

 Haliday and Colpomeria Holmgren. The Sphinctini seem to belong in 

 the Tryphoninae, probably somewhere near the Exenterini. The 

 ovipositor and general conformation of the abdomen beyond the 

 petiole is typical of the Tryphoninae. The same cannot be said of 

 Brachycyrtus. 



Specimens identified as PoecilocryjJtus nigrornaculatus Cameron by 

 Cushman, and considered cryptine by him, were studied in search of 

 possible relationship to Brachycyrtus. The specimens fit the original 

 description of nigrornaculatus rather well and I believe they arc that 

 species. I agree with Dr. Townes (in litt.) that Poecilocryptus is 

 pimpline rather than crj^ptine. However, Brachycyrtus does not seem 

 to be closely related to Poecilocryptus but to be more cryptine in its 

 affinities. Peocilocryptus, unlike Brachycyrtus, has typical pimpline 

 claws, lacks a sternaulus, and is in many respects similar in structure 

 to the Theroniini and to the genus Labium Brulle, the placement of 

 which has also been questioned. 



