﻿art. 
  8 
  REVISION 
  OP 
  THE 
  GENUS 
  MICROBEACON 
  MUESEBECK 
  31 
  

  

  tergite 
  coarsely 
  foveolate, 
  the 
  apex 
  of 
  this 
  tergite 
  commonly 
  rugose; 
  

   second 
  tergite 
  nearly 
  always 
  with 
  a 
  median 
  basal 
  area 
  set 
  off 
  by 
  

   longitudinal 
  foveolate 
  furrows; 
  ovipositor 
  sheaths 
  distinctly 
  less 
  

   than 
  half 
  the 
  length 
  of 
  the 
  abdomen 
  ; 
  head 
  and 
  thorax 
  usually 
  black, 
  

   more 
  or 
  less 
  marked 
  with 
  yellow 
  or 
  red; 
  abdomen 
  varying 
  from 
  

   mostly 
  testaceous 
  to 
  entirely 
  black; 
  legs 
  varying 
  from 
  mostly 
  black- 
  

   ish 
  to 
  testaceous. 
  

  

  Distribution. 
  — 
  California; 
  Washington; 
  Virginia; 
  Minnesota; 
  

   New 
  Hampshire. 
  

  

  Hosts. 
  — 
  Notolophus 
  oslari 
  Barnes; 
  Malacosoma 
  pluvialis 
  Dyar; 
  

   M. 
  constricta 
  Packard. 
  

  

  The 
  foregoing 
  discussion 
  and 
  characterization 
  are 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  

   types 
  of 
  xanthonotus, 
  mali, 
  and 
  hopkinsi, 
  and 
  on 
  considerable 
  addi- 
  

   tional 
  material 
  in 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  National 
  Museum. 
  This 
  ma- 
  

   terial 
  includes 
  series 
  reared 
  from 
  Malacosoma 
  pluvialis, 
  at 
  Pullman, 
  

   Washington, 
  under 
  Washington 
  Experiment 
  Station 
  No. 
  025; 
  from 
  

   M. 
  constricta, 
  at 
  Sacramento, 
  California, 
  under 
  Bureau 
  of 
  Entomo- 
  

   logy 
  No. 
  2747 
  ; 
  and 
  from 
  an 
  unknown 
  lepidopterous 
  larva, 
  at 
  Vienna, 
  

   Virginia, 
  under 
  Quaintance 
  No. 
  7863 
  (R. 
  A. 
  Cushman). 
  There 
  are 
  

   also 
  collected 
  specimens 
  from 
  Santa 
  Cruz 
  Mountains, 
  Yosemite, 
  

   Summerdale 
  and 
  Alameda, 
  California; 
  Durham, 
  New 
  Hampshire 
  

   (Weed 
  and 
  Fiske) 
  ; 
  and 
  St. 
  Anthony 
  Park, 
  Minnesota. 
  

  

  11. 
  MICROBRACON 
  HEBETOR 
  (Say) 
  

  

  Bracon 
  hebetor 
  Say, 
  Bost. 
  Jour. 
  Nat. 
  Hist, 
  vol. 
  1, 
  1S36, 
  p. 
  252. 
  

  

  Bracon 
  dorsator 
  Say, 
  Bost. 
  Jour. 
  Nat. 
  Hist., 
  vol. 
  1, 
  1S36, 
  p. 
  253. 
  

  

  Bracon 
  brevicornis 
  Kikby, 
  Trans. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  Loud., 
  1S84, 
  p. 
  xxxi. 
  — 
  Marshall, 
  

  

  Trans. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  Lond., 
  1885, 
  p. 
  24, 
  pi. 
  1, 
  fig. 
  la 
  and 
  b. 
  

   Bracon 
  juglandis 
  Ashmead, 
  Proc. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  vol. 
  11, 
  18S9 
  (1SSS), 
  p. 
  621. 
  

   Habrobracon 
  liebctor 
  Johnson, 
  Ent. 
  News, 
  vol. 
  6, 
  1S95, 
  p. 
  324. 
  

   Bracon 
  (Habrobracon) 
  honestor 
  Riley 
  and 
  Howard, 
  Ins. 
  Life, 
  vol. 
  7, 
  1895, 
  

  

  p. 
  42S. 
  Misprint 
  for 
  hebetor, 
  corrected 
  in 
  general 
  index. 
  

   Habrobracon 
  beneficientior 
  Viereck, 
  Proc. 
  U. 
  S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  vol. 
  40, 
  1911, 
  p. 
  1S2. 
  

   Habrobracon 
  brevicornis 
  Cushman, 
  Proc. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  Wash., 
  vol. 
  16, 
  1914, 
  p. 
  

  

  101.— 
  Whiting, 
  Biol. 
  Bull. 
  34, 
  1918, 
  p. 
  350. 
  

   Habrobracon 
  juglandis 
  Cushman, 
  Proc. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  Wash., 
  vol. 
  24, 
  1922, 
  p. 
  213. 
  

  

  Type. 
  — 
  The 
  types 
  of 
  hebetor 
  Say 
  and 
  dorsator 
  Say 
  have 
  been 
  lost 
  ; 
  

   that 
  of 
  juglandis 
  Ashmead 
  and 
  that 
  of 
  beneficientior 
  Viereck 
  are 
  in 
  

   the 
  United 
  States 
  National 
  Museum, 
  the 
  former 
  bearing 
  type 
  cata- 
  

   logue 
  No. 
  2913, 
  the 
  latter, 
  No. 
  13494. 
  

  

  This 
  species 
  is 
  exceedingly 
  close 
  to 
  brevicornis 
  (Wesmael), 
  and 
  

   the 
  two 
  have 
  been 
  much 
  confused 
  in 
  literature. 
  Cushman 
  (1922) 
  

   cleared 
  up 
  this 
  matter, 
  calling 
  attention 
  to 
  the 
  difference 
  in 
  habit 
  in 
  

   the 
  two 
  species, 
  and 
  pointing 
  out 
  some 
  morphological 
  differences, 
  

   although 
  he 
  did 
  not 
  regard 
  juglandis 
  Ashmead 
  as 
  identical 
  with 
  

   hebetor 
  Say. 
  It 
  appears, 
  after 
  a 
  careful 
  consideration 
  of 
  Say's 
  

  

  