184 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



which originates close to the base of the abdomen and is usually 

 semi-spiral, but, in the case of some of the parasitic Cynipidae, they 

 run very close to certain of the Proctotrypidae ; the abdomen is, how- 

 ever, usually compressed in these Cynipidae. In the case of Cynipidae 

 with wings, the absence of a stigma and the peculiar zigzag type of 

 neuration :: , which can be seen from any illustration of the family, 

 prevents confusion with the Proctotrypidae. 



Most of these points are brought out by Mr. Morley in his first 

 volume. There is only one small criticism to make, and that is with 

 regard to his character for distinguishing the male winged Chalcids 

 from the male Proctotrypids. Ashmead has pointed out that, in the 

 old genus Proctotrypes (which includes Exallonyx, Kieff.), there exists 

 a ring joint, and, in winged forms, one would, in practice, in the 

 Proctotrypidae, rather have recourse to the prothorax reaching back to 

 the base of the forewings, which it does not in the ( 'halcidae, and the 

 presence in the wings of most Chalcids of a vein running from the 

 costa obliquely into the disc of the wing, and there terminating in a 

 round dot, or stigma, which is not, so far as we know, present in any 

 other group of Hymenoptera. 



There is another group usually assigned to the Proctotrypidae, viz., 

 the Mymaridae, microscopic insects with fringed wings, which feed on 

 the eggs of other insects. These are mostly invisible to the naked eye, 

 except on a window-pane. Ashmead relegated them to the Chalcids, 

 but Dr. Kieffer has apparently restored them to the Proctotrypidae, 

 where they previously stood, and, as this family is probably a collection 

 of many families as divergent from one another as, say, the Ichneu- 

 monidae and the Braconidae, there seems no objection to this inclusion 

 for the present. We may here point out that some of the Proctotrypidae 

 may even approximate to the aculeates, with which Haliday included 

 the Bethylinidae on account of his observation of their habits (see Knt. 

 Mag., vol. ii., p. 219), lately confirmed by an observation recorded 

 by Dr. Kieffer [Andre, vol. ix., p. 522). Ashmead, in his latest 

 classification, separates the Bethylininae, the Embolemininae, and the 

 Dryininae from the Proctotrypidae, and says that they ought to be 

 regarded as more nearly related to the fossorial aculeates. That the 

 three subfamilies are nearly related appear by their all having (when 

 winged) lobed posterior wings. In habits, however, the Dryininae are 

 true parasites (Entomophaga), while the Bethylinae, or some of them, 

 appear to store their prey for the larvfe to feed upon. 



There is, we believe, another reason which has rendered the study 

 of the Ichneumonidae unpopular — the fact that the main divisions of 

 the group are so badly distinguished that it is no easy matter to assign 

 an ichneumon approximately to a correct place, even with the help of 

 the most carefully-framed tables. This difficulty applies between the 

 tribes and genera of the Ichneumoninae, and even the most carefully- 

 framed tables in Mr. Morley's first volume did not wholly remove it. 

 Thomson's divisions of Gravenhorst's genus Ichneumon, as there 

 adopted and praised, separate the Joppides and the Ichneumonides by 

 a primary character, viz., the sulcus between the metanotum or 

 propodeum and the scutellum or post-scutellum, which is very 

 difficult to properly appreciate, and the generic characters are in 

 many cases hardly easier of application. The result is practically 



* The Proctotrypidae with the wings without a stigma have them almost veinless. 



