INSECUTOR INSCITI^ MENSTRUUS 23 



cephalic side of the middle ones scarcely acute. The pronotal 

 disk is posteriorly subtruncate, not nearly so rounded as in the 

 preceding species or in D. jenningsi. The entire insect is a 

 lightly mottled grayish yellow except a broad piceous streak on 

 the sides of the abdomen, which is strongly contrasted with the 

 rest of the color and is dimly and very narrowly continued part 

 way along the pronotum ; the fore and middle legs are less 

 noticeably banded than in peruviana but the antennge are about 

 as in that species. 



Measurements. — Length : pronotum, 7 mm. ; hind femora, 

 15.5 mm. ; ovipositor, 10 mm. Width : pronotum through mid- 

 dle, 4.75 mm. ; ovipositor, 2 mm. 



Described from one 9 , the type, December 13, 1906. Icon- 

 nicofif. 



Type in the collection of the U. S. National Museum. 



Cat. No. 31330, U. S. Nat. Mus. 



This may eventually prove to be but a variety of peruviana 

 but the less rounded posterior margin of the pronotum, lighter 

 coloration, and more slender appearance indicates distinctness. 



The genus Dectinomima is very closely allied to the genus 

 Uchuca of Giglio-Tos and may indeed prove to be the same. 

 The better developed elytra, at least in the female, of Uchuca 

 make their separation easy but the males of Dectinomima, at 

 the present unknown, may have these organs longer than in the 

 female. The original description of Uchuca states that the 

 posterior tibiae have an apical dorsal spine on each side This, 

 if true, constitutes an adequate differentiating character, as in 

 Dectinomima there is an apical spine above on the inner margin 

 only. But it is possible that Giglio-Tos considered the dorsal 

 calcar on the inner margin a spine and in that case this char- 

 acter conforms with conditions present in Dectinomima as 

 illustrated in Plate II, figure 14. The type of Dectinomima 

 jenningsi was before Karny when he wrote the fascicule on the 

 Copiphorinse and he also evidently knows the genus Uchuca as 

 he figures the type species of that genus and as he does not 

 merge the two genera, but even follows their respective authors 

 in placing them in separate subfamilies, it is possible that they 

 are really distinct. 



