48 HYMENOPTERA. 



Europe. CotyPes. — Accession No. 4-4,190, Illinois State Lab- 

 oratory of Natural History, Urbana, Illinois, 1 slide, 1 cf , 

 1 9 (G. M. L. 2006), Europe. 



This species may be the same as carpocapsce Ashmead 

 (Schreiner) but I have no means of telling because of the 

 inadequate description and grotesque illustration of that 

 species. To say that it is is as bad or worse than to say that 

 it isn't and I think most is to be gained by considering it 

 quite distinct. So far as may be told from the description 

 of carpocapscB it is different, but if Schreiner's figure is indi- 

 cative of the character of his description the latter must be 

 untrustworthy. I am more concerned to know whether it 

 may not be an extreme variation of fninutum Riley. 

 2. Pentartliron sembliclis (Aurivillius). 



Oophthora semblidis Aurivillus, 1897, pp. 253-254, tafl. 5, figs. 1, 



2, 3 and 3 a and 4-10. 

 Oophthora semblidis Aurivillius — Silvestri, 1908, pp. 72-83, text- 

 figures. 

 [Oophthora) Pentarthron semblidis (Aurivillius) — Girault, 1910, p. 

 275. 



This European species is so closely allied with the type 

 species of the genus — mimittirn Riley — that the only distinct 

 differentiating character which I am able to detect, other than 

 habitus, is the presence of dimorphism in the male. It is true 

 that the specimens which I have seen are nearly all dark and 

 uniform in color but the great variation in color of the type 

 species makes this character in semblidis of little specific 

 value. The species was originally described as the type of 

 a new genus — Oophthora Aurivillius — and is very accurately 

 figured. The figures accompanying the original description 

 of the species are unusual for the faithfulness in showing 

 details but they do not show the obvious infuscation of the 

 fore wings. 



From what may be called paratypic specimens — being two 

 slides bearing all forms of the species probably selected from 

 the same series from which the original description was 

 drawn and possibly the actual specimens (no types were de- 

 posited or mentioned by the describer) I add the following 

 descriptive details : 



