516 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. ns 



E. floridana (Ashmead) 1887, was described as Lamprostylus 

 fioridanus from a single male captured at large and transferred to the 

 genus Eurytoma by Peck (1951). The shape and sculpturmg of the 

 abdomen are not typical of Eurytoma. 



E, hegeli, nomen nudum (Bugbee, 1956). 



E. lanulae Fitch, 1859. This species is a synonym of Eurytoma 

 studiosa Say, 1836, according to Ashmead, 1887. The single female 

 type, no. 1824, in the U.S. National Museum collection would fall 

 within the range of variation of E. studiosa. 



E. maga Girault, 1920. Removed to the genus Prodecatoma 

 (Bugbee, 1956). 



E. medicaginis (Gahan). Transferred to the genus Tenuipeiiolus 

 (Bugbee, 1951). 



E. miMenhergiae (Howard), 1896. Removed to the genus Eury- 

 tomocharis (Bugbee, 1956). 



E. nevadense Ashmead, 1894. This species is represented by a 

 single male specmien located in the collection of the Philadelphia 

 Academy of Science. 



E. orbiculata Say, 1836. Described from a single male specimen 

 that seems to be lost. The description is not complete enough to 

 place this species with certainty. 



E. polygraphi (Ashmead). Transferred to the genus Ipideurytoma 

 (Bugbee, 1956). 



E. querci-pisi (Fitch), 1859. Described originally in the genus 

 Macroglenes, the species was removed to Eurytoma by Ashmead in 

 Smith's, "Insects of New Jersey," 1900. The holotype female, no. 

 1830, in the U.S. National A/[useum collection has the abdomen broken 

 off and glued on a tip below the rest of the specimen. It is possible 

 that this is not the original type as it does not fit the original descrip- 

 tion. The specimen is yellow to reddish brown and Fitch describes 

 the species as black. 



E. sculpta Ashmead, 1887. Transferred to Bruchophagus (Bugbee, 

 1956). 



E. triodiae (Howard), 1896. Holotype female no. 2755 in the U.S. 

 National Museum. Howard placed this species in the genus Eury- 

 tomocharis but Peck in Muesebeck, Krombein and others (1951) 

 placed it in Eurytoma. Until the genera of the family Eurytomidae 

 are studied and more clearly delimited, I prefer to exclude this species 

 from Eurytoma, chiefly on the basis of the lack of any sculpturing on 

 the lateral surface of the sixth tergum. 



E. vitis (Saunders), 1869. Although transferred to the genus 

 Eurytoma by Peck (1951), this species belongs in the genus Evoxysoma, 

 which seems to be a recognizable genus (see Bugbee, 1936, pages 

 199, 200). 



