NOTES ON SCOTCH AND OTHER PROCTOTRYPID.E. 101 



the nomenclature put forth by Kieffer seems sound, and the insect is 

 SO common that it cannot have escaped the earhest writers on the 

 group. Mr. Cameron's hst omits, whether purposely or not we do 

 not know, Bhabde/np-is fasciatits, Kietf., recorded in Andre, vol. x., 

 p. 377, as taken by Mr. Cameron in Scotland. It is a large insect of 

 6mm., entirely new to the British list, of which we know nothing but the 

 description, etc., in Andre. Can there be some mistake about the record? 

 It is strange that Scotland is so badly represented in this subfamily, but 

 the other British genera [Cephalnnomia 2 spp., Fspudi.-^obracliiitin bspp., 

 E I'll vis 2 spp., and (junioziis 1 sp.) all appear to contain exclusively southern 

 insects: I'listonra in the Oxford Museum (" Netley, Hope") and 

 Salerodenim (of Andre) are also doubtfully English. There are also 

 two other English BetJiyli, viz., lujalinatns, Marshall, and cephalutes, 

 Forster, besides those recorded by Mr. Cameron. Turning to the 

 Dnjininae, the proportion of insects found in Scotland is very large, 

 and two (Toimtopi have since been recorded in addition.''' With 

 reference to the genus Antaeon, we may point out that A. ni<iricornis, 

 Kieff., was renamed by him A. obscnricornis : A. nujricornis being 

 preoccupied by Perkins, and also A. parvidus was renamed A. parvus 

 {cf. Errata to vol. x.) and these should be corrected in Mr. Cameron's 

 list. There no. 40, azoriis, Walk., is apparently alortis, Walk.; this is 

 one of the insects spoken of by Kieffer as insufficiently described, and 

 it is desirable that Mr. Cameron should give particulars enabling the 

 insect to be placed in Kieffer's tables, otherwise it cannot again be 

 identified, and will become a useless name. 



Passing to the second article, apparently the new Scelioninae are 

 not yet entitled to the names given them, as they have not, so far as 

 we can find out, been described; this, no doubt, Aviil soon be remedied. 

 The L'eraphroninae follow. Mr. Cameron has apparently intended to 

 •divide them into Meijaspilini and Ceraphronini, following Ashmead, 

 but, if so, he has omitted the word Ceraphronini : anyhow, there is 

 nothing to correspond with the word Me(/aspilim, and the division, 

 though convenient, is not sound, as the different sexes of Lagynudea 

 fall into different divisions [cf. Kieffer, vol. xi.). As regards the genera 

 ■of the C'erap/troninae, Meyaspilns, West., is now assigned by Kieffer to 

 what was Habropelta, Thoms., of Marshall's Catalof/ne, i.e., the insects 

 with a bifid spine on the metathorax, and Conostigmm takes the place 

 of Meiiaxpiliis : the genus was, however, founded by Dahlbom, not 

 Kieffer, and this should be corrected and so should the inclusion of 

 C. pitnctidatiis, Cam., and ( '. viitllenais, Cam., in llei/aspiliis, West., as 

 they are without the bifid spine. The species of t'unostiyinu.'i (the old 

 2Ieiiaxpilus) have been little understood by Marshall, judging from 

 Kieft'er's comments on Marshall's collection. If, however, Marshall's 

 €atalo(fue were really compiled on the collection lost, and this one 

 forms the second collection, in which insects were wrongly named in 

 the absence of the types or first-named species, the errors are readily 

 intelligible; being microscopic, the insects require frequent comparison 

 with authentic examples, and the loss of the former collection must 



* Taken by W. Evans, and recorded by Chitty in Knt. Rec, 1907, p. 81. 

 t In Cameron's first list, we notice that Antaeon divisus, K., is entered three 

 times, and A. indivistis, K., twice (CM.). 



