ART. 20. ICHNEUMON-FLIES OF TRIBE PANISCINI CUSHMAN. 3 



new name. The very small ocelli, lacking notauli and long ovi- 

 positor of Enderlein's species would seem to indicate that he has 

 erred in placing them in the Paniscini. I have not been able to 

 identify the genus as interpreted by Enderlein as anything in the 

 United States National Museum, but since he has placed it in the 

 Paniscini the first tergite is supposedly slender with the spiracles at or 

 before the middle. This together with the long ovipositor and pecti- 

 nate claws would seem to indicate that he has referred to this tribe 

 representatives of some Lissonotine genus, which, as is shown in the 

 next paragraph, he did in the case of Sauterellus. 



Santerellus planiscutellatus Enderlein from Formosa, the basis of 

 the genus, I am able to recognize as a species of Leptohatopsis, a 

 Lissonotine genus. Of this species I have before me both sexes also 

 from Formosa and also collected by Sauter. In his key to the 

 genera of the Paniscini Enderlein ascribes simple claws to Absyrtus 

 to distinguish it from Sauterellus. In this he is, of course, in error. 



To Apatagium in Enderlein's key will run all of the species of 

 Parahates known to me that have the areolet complete. Most of 

 them, however, differ from the description of the genus in that the 

 second recurrent is strongly curved — not straight or nearly straight. 

 But I have before me one specimen from Java, type locality of two 

 of Enderlein's species, in which this vein is straight in the middle 

 and curved at each end. It appears to be neither of Enderlein's 

 species. Variation in the form of this vein occurs in Paniscus and 

 also in the present genus as recorded by its author, and I would not 

 consider the character of generic significance. I, therefore, do not 

 hesitate to synonymize Apatagium with Parahates. 



Prosthodocis is founded on the single character of the antefurcal 

 nervulus as distinguished from the postfurcal or interstitial nervulus 

 of Paniscus. This I do not consider as of generic significance, and 

 would synonymize Prosthodocis with Paniscus. 



The foregoing eliminations and synonymizing brings us back 

 practically to the three genera originally treated of by Holmgren 

 (Parahates had not then been segregated from Paniscus). That 

 Opheltes and Absyrtus are at all closely related to Paniscus and 

 Parahates or should be grouped in tribal relation with them I do 

 not believe. There is, in my opinion, nothing about them that 

 should exclude them from the Mesoleptini and more especially from 

 the subtribe Mesoleiina as defined by Schmiedeknecht. Paniscus 

 and Parahates, on the other hand, I would place close to the Try- 

 phonini and Cteniscini on account of their very similar habits of 

 oviposition, with its accompanying modification of the ovipositor, 

 and their subsequent development. These are at present very un- 

 satisfactory characters to work with because our knowledge of this 



