248. Journal New York Entomological Society. lvoI xviii. 



columnar, whereas in conotracheli they are but about two times longer 

 than wide and more near cylindrical ovate than cylindrical. The 

 posterior wing ciliation also differs in the males of the two species 

 as brought out in the table for the females. 



1. Anaphoidea sordidata Girault. 



Girault, igogb, pp. 169-171. 



Since describing this species I have reared it from the eggs of 

 Tyloderma foveolatiim (Say) in the stems of Qinoihcra as originally 

 the hosts obtained at Butler, 111., July 16, 1910. The following speci- 

 mens: 2 J^'s, July 17; 5 J*'s, 2 5's, July 26, 1910. Also it has been 

 captured at Urbana, 111., two male specimens. May 16 and 25, 1910, in 

 sweepings and in a greenhouse. 



2. Anaphoidea conotracheli (Girault). 



Anaphes conotracheli Girault, 1905&, p. 220. 



Johnson and Girault, 1906, pp. 5-6. 



Quaintance, 1906, p. 327. 



Brooks, 1910, p. no. 



Anaphoidea conotracheli Girault, 1909, p. 171. 



This species was too briefly and somewhat erroneously described 

 from a very large number bred from the eggs of the plum curculio, 

 Conotrachehis nenuphar Herbst. It is very similar to the other 

 species of this genus, sordidata and pitllicntra yet is distinctly different 

 and can be separated from them by a close study of the table given 

 before. It is the same in general coloration as the former species 

 nearly and indistinguishable from it until a close comparison is made 

 of wing and antennal structures; it is more easily distinguished from 

 puUicrnra as the legs are differently colored, the fore wings are 

 distinctly broader and the antennae and posterior wings are somewhat 

 different, the first two characteristics however being especially no- 

 ticeable ; its antennae are very similar to those of puUicrura. In its 

 original description, which is inadequate for its proper recognition 

 and which is somewhat erroneous, the following leading corrections 

 are made : The mandibles are tridentate not bidentate ; the antennae 

 in the female are lo-jointed not 9-jointed, the club being divided, a 

 character heretofore not well. recognized in the Mymaridae; the wings 

 are slightly fumated. The following descriptive details are added : 

 In the female the antennae differ mostly from those of the female 

 of the type species in the relative length of the second funicle joint 



