REVISION OF THE GENUS EXETASTES — CUSHMAN 247 



the teeth not of very different size; palpi slender, with no markedly 

 enlarged or compressed joints; labium never greatly elongated; 

 antenna filiform or slightly thickened near middle and tapering toward 

 both base and apex, scape obliquely truncate, basal joints of flagellam 

 much longer than second joint; eyes not emarginate; ocelli not touching 

 the eyes, rarely very large; malar space distinct. 



Thorax more or less compressed; notauli and sternauli weak or 

 absent; prepectal carina distinct; scutellum moderately elevated, 

 propodeum not areolated, at most with apical carina distinct, spiracles 

 oval to elongate. 



Hind leg very much longer than others, coxa very large, calcaria 

 long. 



Wings large; stigma and radial cell narrow; areolet trapezoidal with 

 second intercubitus frequently curved and second recurrent at or 

 near middle, usuall}^ large and sessile or shortly petiolate, rarely 

 small and with long petiole; discocubitus curved or broken, in the 

 latter case frequently with a short ramellus; second recurrent from 

 nearly straight to strongly bisubgeniculate, bullae confluent or very 

 narrowly separated; nervulus postfurcal; postnervulus broken well 

 below middle; nervellus broken near top and strongly reclivous. 



Abdomen fusiform, in female usually more or less compressed 

 apically, hypopygium nearly or quite reaching apex; first segment 

 subsessile to subpetiolate, usually strongly convex above just before 

 spiracles, spiracles at or before middle; ovipositor with a distinct 

 subapical notch dorsally, compressed, straight or curved, usually 

 prominently exserted, sheath rarely as long as abdomen or longer, 

 very rarely barely exserted. 



As thus characterized and as represented in the North American 

 fauna, the genus is composed of several more or less well defined 

 groups of species, some of which could be separated as easily recog- 

 nizible genera; but if this were done there would still be left a more 

 or less heterogeneous residue, composed of a majority of the species. 

 I believe the convenience and aims of classification are better served 

 by the preservation of one large, easily defined, and easily recognized 

 genus than by the erection of a series of small genera with the orig- 

 inal genus left as a catch-all of species that can not be placed elsewhere. 



Of all the characters ascribed by various writers to Leptobatus only 

 one, the long ovipositor, distinguishes if from Exetastes as heretofore 

 constituted, and this can not be accepted as a generic character. 



Rhimphalea brevicorpa Davis, a synonym of Exetastes bioeulatus 

 Cresson, was the first species assigned to Rhimphalea Foerster, and 

 was recognized by Viereck as the genotype. In my opinion it can 

 not be accepted as such, since it will not run to Foerster's family 

 Tryphonoidae because of the lack of dorsal carinae or groove on the 

 first abdominal segment. 



