oo [February, 



0£ Pctlaestrhla I can recognize but one species, P. nssimilis Hope 

 {hicolor White, plaft/cera Fairm., eucera Fairm.). 



Summary of Conclusions. 



Palaestka Cast. (Tmesidera Westw.). Zonitis. 



1. P. rubripennis Cast. 1. Z. violacea Hope (Tmesidera). 



2. P. rufipennis Westw. (Tmesidera). rugosipennis Fairm. 



? quadriforeata Fairm. var. aspericeps Blackb. 



F var. rnfociiicta Fairm. 2. Z. rubricollis Hope (Tmesidera). 



3. P. foveicollis sp. n. rugata Fairm. 



Palaestrida White. ? Morpholtcus Lea (Oedemeridae). 



1. P. assimilis Koi->e (Tmesidera). 1. M. concolor Ma,cl. (Palaestrida). 



bicolor White. 2. M. flabellicornis Macl. (P(daestrida) 



platycera Fairm. (Palaestra). ? serraticornis Lea. 



eucera Fairm. (Palaestra). 3. M. nigripennis Macl. (Palaestrida). 



Koiember 28ih, 1919. 



NOTES ON BRITISH PSAMMOCHARIDAE (POMPILIDAE). 

 BY E. C. L. PERKIKS, M.A., U.SC, F.Z.S. 



The Psanunoclaridae, until recenth' known as PompiliJae, is one 

 of the most difficult families of the Aculeate Hymenoptera and contains 

 vast numbers of species, the group being distrilnited over almost all parts 

 of the world. The few British species have been treated very different!}^ 

 bv various writers. Smith recognized in them only three genera, Aporus, 

 Poinpihts, and G-ropales ; Saunders in his " Synopsis " .six, but in his 

 later work he followed Kohl in separating Pseudagenia from Agenia 

 and Galicnrgus from Salius and in sinking Aportis and Evagetes under 

 Pompihis. Ashmead m his classification of the world's genera, as then 

 known, divided the family into no fewer than six subfamilies, recognizing 

 as valid nearly all the previously described genera and erecting many 

 new ones. It is not possible to place even our few species in their 

 j)roper genera, or even sometimes in his subfamilies, b}^ the use of 

 Ashmead's tables, because, in the first place, not only genera but even 

 groups of genera are separated therein on minute characters of neuration, 

 which are so variable that they are not even of specific value, such varia- 

 tions being frequent in different examples of a single species ; and, 

 secondly, becavise other characters that he uses are sometimes incorrect 

 or imaginary. It is pi'obable, however, that, as is the case in other 

 groups of Hymenoptera with which he has dealt, a considerable propor- 

 tion of this author's genera will be found valid, although the characters 

 are insufficientlv or iucorrectlv described. 



