82 HYMENOPTERA. 



3. The only generic difference between the two was in the antennae of 



pallida where the funicle was recorded in the notes as being 

 1-jointed. Now, in the first place, the antenna was taken 

 from a dried specimen ; secondly, I have observed what was 

 the same thing in a few dried specimens of acuminata ; 

 thirdly, another comparison of the two antennae made for 

 me by Mr. J. C. Crawford (comparing a single homotypical 

 female amini^iata in balsam with the type balsam-mounted 

 antenna— Hym. slide 110, U. S. N. M. — of pallida) showed 

 in his opinion that they were similar. 



4. And certainly I shall include my own personal impressions. 



5. The type localities of both species are practically identical. 



For these reasons, I consider the species pallida identical 

 with acumifiata. 



Besides the original specimens of acuminata mentioned 

 above, in the National Museum collection were found six 

 specimens all bearing the label "134", two of them also 

 "3756°. Iss. Sep. 10, '85." These were all remounted in 

 balsam (1 slide, 6 9 's, the cotypes). A seventh specimen 

 proved to be a female of Westwoodella sayiguinea Girault and 

 has been recorded under that species. 



LITERATURE REFERRED TO. 

 1885. Riley (Charles Valentine). Fourth Report U. S. 



Ent. Commission, U. S. Dep. Agric, Washington, 



D. C, p. 102. 

 1888. Ashmead (William Harris). Canadian Ent,, London, 



Ontario, XX, June. 

 1894-1895. Idem. Journal Cincinnati Soc. Natural History, 



Cincinnati, XVII, October, 1894. 

 1894-1895. Webster (Francis Marion). lb. 



1896. Idem. Bull. No. 6, new series, Division of Ent., U. S. 



Dep. Agric, Washington, D. C. 



1897. AuRiviLLius (Chr.) Entomologisk Tidskrift, Stock- 



holm, adertonde argangen (XVIII, 1897). 

 Howard (Leland Ossian). Canadian Ent., London, 



Ontario, XXX, April. 

 AIarlatt (Charles Lester). Bull. No. 14, new 



series. Division of Ent., U. S. Department of 



Agric, Washington, D. C. 



