4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.63. 



abscissa of basella never parallel with subcostella and never on a line 

 with the mediella; abdomen ovate or lanceolate, and petiolate, very 

 rarely subpetiolate; spiracles of first segment placed at or very near 

 the middle, more often a little behind than before; first tergite usually 

 sculptured, and in some species provided with two conspicuous fossae 

 (called "tracheal grooves" by Marshall) anterior to the spiracles; re- 

 mainder of abdomen smooth and polished; segments two and three 

 connate, and longer and broader than the following; hypopygium 

 not prominent; ovipositor sheaths varying in length from slightly less 

 than half as long as the abdomen to longer than the entire body. 



The genus Meteorus as here considered constitutes the subfamily 

 Meteorinae as that is understood at the present time. wSzepligeti ^ 

 recognized Zemiotes Foerster as a good genus, distinguished from 

 Meteorus by the broadening, divided radiellan cell; but while this 

 character is conspicuous, it does not appear to be of more than specific 

 or possibly subgeneric value in this group. The five kno%vn North 

 American species of Meteorinae possessing a broadening divided radiel- 

 lan cell, are included in this paper as species of Meteorus. Saprotichus 

 Holmgren was suppressed as a synonym of Meteorus Haliday by 

 Szepligeti,^ and this opinion has been supported by Dr. A. Roman. ^ 

 There can be no doubt that this view is correct. Perilitus Foerster 

 (not Nees) and Protelus Foerster were originally separated from Meteo- 

 rus on characters which are absolutely valueless in this group from a 

 generic standpoint, and of little importance even specifically. Szep- 

 ligeti correctly placed these in the synonymy of Meteorus. Aridelus 

 Marshall, which was included in the Meteorinae by Ashmead,^ has 

 been referred to the Euphorinae by Szepligeti, where it apparently 

 belongs. The open second cubital cell, the short radial cell, the con- 

 fluence of the first discoidal and the first cubital cells, and the habitus 

 (which is that of Wesmaelia Foerster) , certainly ally this genus more 

 closely to genera in the Ewphorinae than to Meteorus. It must be 

 conceded, however, that Meteorus alone does not form a natural 

 group as distinct from the Ewphorinae; and it is only provisionally 

 that it is retained here as a separate subfamily. 



Little difficulty should be encountered in distinguishing between 

 species of Meteorus and related groups, if the important points in the 

 foregoing detailed generic characterization are borne in mind. The 

 wing venation and the petiolate abdomen will separate members of 

 this genus from any other group with which they can possibly be 

 confused. 



Our knowledge of the habits and biology of the species of this genus 

 is rather meager, being limited to a few of the economically more 



1 Gen. Ins., fasc. 22, 1904, p. 177. 



Idem, p. 177. 

 > Ent. Tids., vol. 31, 1910, p. 132. 



Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 23, 1900, p. 117 



