June, I9II.] GiRAULT: GeNUS MyMAR IN NoRTH AMERICA. 93 



tlie apical half of the blade portion clouded and the venation absent; 

 the posterior wings are aborted, without a blade, merely like a stiff, 

 thick bristle, long and slender but very much shorter than the fore 

 wings. The second fiinicle joint of the antenna is abruptly very 

 long and slender and the scape is unusually long and slender as with 

 this genus. 



This North American species seems to resemble very closely 

 Mymar pnlchcUum Curtis, but according to Foerster's (1847) descrip- 

 tion of the latter differs from it in having the second funicle joint 

 of the antennae much longer (11 or more times) than the third 

 funicle joint, whereas in female pulchcUum "das iste Glied der 

 Geissel ist etwas langer als das Stielchen, das 2te und 3te dagegen 

 sehr stark verlangert, fast von der Grosse des Schaftes, das 3te aber 

 ist immer noch ein wenig langer als das 2te, die 3 folgenden Glieder 

 sind wieder sehr kurz." Westwood (1879) gives a figure of the 

 male of pulchcUum and says of the female : " This insect has . . . 

 antennae . . . 9-jointed in the female, with the fourth joint remark- 

 ably elongated and slender " ; from which it may be inferred that the 

 other joints are comparatively short. The figure (male) shows a 

 longer blade portion of the fore wing than is the case with the Amer- 

 ican specimen and Westwood's remarks on the species pulchcUum, 

 not agreeing by inference with Foerster's descriptions, would lead to 

 the belief that his specimens represent a distinct species. As species 

 of Mymarids are more numerous than is generally supposed, I can 

 see no reason why this should not be the case, especially since West- 

 wood captured his specimens at large and did not identify them by 

 actual comparison. The same, I think, may be said of Foerster's 

 specimens, as the following would lead one to infer.^ 



Through the kindness of Dr. L. O. Howard I have been enabled 

 to see Curtis' (1832) description and figure of M. pulchcUum which 

 agree with the specimen before me but not with Foerster's description 

 of the species. Curtis' figures appear to be excellent ones and my 

 specimen agrees with them as previously stated ; only the short rows 

 of discal cilia in the cephalo-distal portion of the blade, cephalad of 

 the longitudinal row of cilia running the blade's entire middle length, 

 are not shown or indicated to be present. The antennae agree as 



' Foerster's specimens are more probably different from pulchellum than 

 Westwood's since the latter's specimens agree better with Curtis' figure. 



