524 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. Si 



Eoman, tracing the missing wing veins by reflected light, concluded 

 tlie geiuis to be iclineumonid and placed it in the Pimplinae. 



Handiirsch (1925 and 1933) elevated the subfamily to family rank 

 and for unexplained reasons dropped it between the Aphidiidae and 

 Stephanidae. 



Fahringer (1925) followed Handiirsch in treatmg the group as a 

 family but later (1933) reduced it to subfamily rank in the Bra- 

 conidae. where he related it to the Helconinae and Microgasterinae. 

 His reason for so doing appears to have been convenience, which he 

 permitted to outweigh the natural relationship pointed out by Roman, 



Waterston also recognized Neorhacodes as ichneumonid and, while 

 agreeing that Roman might be correct in placing it in the Pimplinae, 

 suggested possible relationship to the Tryphoninae. 



Bischof f , also recognizing it as an ichneumonid, agreed with Roman 

 that it should stand close to the Pimplinae but did not place it defi- 

 nitely in that subfamily. 



Schmiedeknecht, using the original name Rhacodes^ placed the 

 genus at the end of the Microgasterinae without including it in his 

 key to the genera of that subfamily. 



Roman, Bischoff, and Waterston are obviously correct in placing 

 this curious genus in the Ichneumonidae rather than in the Braconi- 

 dae. As shown by the figures published by Roman and Waterston 

 the positions of all the typical veins of the iclineumonid wings can be 

 seen by reflected light, except the intercubiti, which are eliminated 

 by the confluence of radius and cubitus. One detail of the venation 

 that both Roman and Waterston figured, but which neither men- 

 tioned, is the presence of the intercubitella instead of basella. This 

 is an ichneumonid character. 



In my opinion both Roman and Waterston were correct, if Glypta 

 is allowed to stand in the Pimplini and the Mesoleptmi are to be 

 considered as tryphonine, for Neorhacodes belongs to the great com- 

 plex of internally parasitic ichneumonids, characterized hy the dor- 

 sally notched ovipositor (fig. 48) and including such apparently 

 divergent groups as the Lissonotini and most of the Ophioninae and 

 Mesoleptini. Despite their divergence I believe these three groups are 

 more closely related to one another than are the Lissonotini to the 

 rest of the Ichneumoninae or the Mesoleptini to the Tryphonini. 

 Within this complex Neorhacodes most closely resembles the Lis- 

 sonotini, but the anomalous venation, the 13-jointed antennae, and 

 tlie unusual host relation justify recognition of the group in at least 

 the tribal rank. For the present I prefer to retain the subfamily 

 status. 



