100 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



collectors, and it may be that many of the species are represented by 

 unique specimens. The publication of these lists should encourage 

 others to supplement them, and it is hoped that they will induce the 

 publication of a new British list, as the names in Marshall's ('ataloiitie 

 are now entirely out of date and misleading. 



A few remarks may be made on the first list published ; most of 

 those on the second must remain till the publication of Kieffer's work 

 dealing with the insects. At the date of publication the great majority 

 of Kieffer's species in the list were MS. names, but Kieffer's work, 

 with the descriptions, is gradually appearing, and no harm will have 

 been done by the somewhat premature appearance of the second list. 

 The family as a whole is termed by Mr. Cameron, the O.ryura, a name 

 which has of late fallen somewhat into disuse, the group having been 

 known as the Pioctntri/pidae. The justification for the restoration of 

 this term arises from the discordance of the elements composing the 

 family ; parts are closely allied to the Aculeates, while the other parts 

 are undoubted true Parasitica (Tarabrantia), with affinities not to one 

 family only, but to several ; thus the Mywaridae are so closely allied 

 to the C/iaJrididae that they may either be treated as Chalcids as is 

 done by Ashmead, or as Proctotrypids as the majority of authors 

 regard them. Some of the Ceraphronidae run verj^ close to some of 

 the Cynipidae, the family apparently nearly related to the Procto- 

 trypidae : in having the terebra emerging from the tail the group 

 approaches the Chrysididae, Avith its tubular ovipositor. The families 

 of the (Kryiira, in which the terebra has been regarded as a true sting, 

 are the Fu'thylinae, Dryininae and Kmholeininae: these are distinguished 

 from all the other families by having the hindwings with a lobe at the 

 base. Mr. Cameron has, however, divided the O.ryura into two main 

 groups ; the Bethylidae corresponding with the Betlrylinae, and the 

 Proctotrypidae including all the other families. The justification is 

 that the Bi'thylinae (or at an}- rate some of them) alone have the 

 habits of the Aculeates, which they resemble by provisioning their 

 nests with stung larvje, not, however, making a cell or assigning anj^ 

 particular food to any larva, but leaving the larvae together to feed on 

 the stored food, cf. Haliday, Andre and Ashmead.-'- The habit can, 

 however, hardly obtain throughout the group, e.y., in Cephalonowia, 

 which is bred from fungus, and is probably parasitic on Cis (cf. Trans. 

 Eut. Snc. Lond., 1907, p. 24). The Dryininae though agreeing with the 

 Bethylinae as to the wings, are parasitic like ichneumons , the truth 

 being that here, as elsewhere. Nature refuses to submit to a dicho- 

 tomoUs division, and we think that no advantage is gained by separating 

 the Dryininae from the Bethylinae, and treating the Bethylinae as a 

 separate sub-group, though, like Mr. Cameron, we prefer to treat the 

 Bethylidae or Bethylinae as the first family of the Oxyara. 



As to the list, there seem one or two trivial errors : Bethylti» 

 fuscicorniK should apparently be assigned to Jurine, not Walker, 

 though Walker rightly named the insect. This common species has, 

 until recently, been known as Perisennts triareolatus, but the view of 



* In October, 1902, I received for determination a specimen ot Betlnjliis 

 fuscicoriiis, Jur. ( = Perisemus triareolatus, Fiirst.), from Mr. Richardson of 

 Weymouth; this was "bred from Gelechia hrizella on thrift, Littlehampton, 

 20th June, 1889," and it is the only known occurrence of this species attacking a 

 lepidopterous larva in the form of an entomophagous parasite. — Ci.aude Morley. 



