March, I9I2.] QlRAULT : SxEPIIANODES IN NORTH AMERICA. 43 



Described from two female specimens captured on the windows 

 of a stable on a farm at Butler, 111., July 15, 1910 (i J)- ^'''d on the 

 windows of a greenhouse, Urbana, 111., June 8, 1910 (ij)- Both 

 specimens were in the company of several species of Polynema. 



While on this subject of Mymarid genera, I desire to call atten- 

 tion to some of the other genera described by Knock,* with Stepha- 

 nodes. The genus Clemchus Knock (/. c, p. 453, PI. XII, Kigs. 6-10) 

 certainly is very close to Anaphes Haliday, separated by wing char- 

 acters and the longer antennal scape only." Now in Anaphes the 

 wings vary considerably in shape (as do those of some of the other 

 genera) but a correlating variation does not occur with the venation. 

 The same variation occurs in Anagrus Haliday, is limited and is one 

 of the means by which species may be distinguished, in other words 

 has no other than specific value. Another variation occurring in 

 these genera and of specific value is that of the antennas (relative 

 shape and size of the joints) ; in both the genera mentioned, also, the 

 antennal scape is usually short and stout but varies so as to become 

 twice longer than wide {Polynema varies in the same way, also 

 without correlated variation). Thus ClenicJius is at the most no 

 more than a subgenus. 



In the same way Erythnietus Knock (/. c, pp. 454-455, PI. XIII, 

 Pigs. 6-10) is very close to Anagrus; it has broader wings than is 

 usual with the latter genus but otherwise I do not see how it differs 

 generically. The genus Enasius (I. c, p. 456, PI. XIV, Pigs. 1-5) is 

 puzzling. It has the venation of Anagrus and the male antenna of 

 Anaphes (12-jointed as shown by the photomicrograph but in the text 

 stated to be 13-jointed as in male Anagrus). Oophilus (I. c, p. 458, 

 PI. XV, Figs. 1-6) is a valid genus characterized by the broad wings 

 which are short and densely ciliated (fore wings) and the number of 

 antennal joints borne by the female. Stethynhim (I. c. p. 452. PI. 

 XII, Figs. 1-5) is also a distinct genus. Its 3-jointed (so stated in 

 the text) antennal club does not show in the photomicrograph. 

 Parallelaptera (p. 454, PI. XIII, Figs. 1-5) is valid as is also Dicopus 

 (p. 455, PI. XIII, Figs. 11-13). 



^ New Genera of British Mymaridie (Haliday). Trans, Ent. Society of 

 London, December 31, 1909, pp. 449-459, Pis. XII— XV. (Plates printed in 

 duplicate.) 



-It is true the male antenna is stated to be 13-jointed, but I can count Ijut 

 12 in the photomicrograph; the joints of the female are easily covmted. 



