2G 



ICHNEUMONIDiE. 



distijicf , fjice t'ciit rally oariiiate; clypeus rounded or with the sides 

 sliglitly ol)]i(|uo at the apex, basally indistinctly discrete ; lower 

 mandibular tooth large, the upper smaller. Anteniice stout and 

 never as slender as those of flhyssa or Fimpla. Thorax stout ; 

 mesonotiim not transversely striate ; notauli distinctly impressed, 

 their middle lobe small and triangular, basally transverse, strongly 

 punctate and often elevated ; metanotum with more or less dis- 

 tinct, though never complete, area) and large linear spiracles. 

 Scutellum hardly elevated, laterally immarginate and basally im- 

 pressed ; postscutellum basally bifoveolate. Abdomen stout, 

 glabrous and nitidulous, iieither punctate nor strigose, and with 

 no impressions ; basal segment less stout than in Pimpla, not 

 discally bicarinate and of variable form, with the spiracles a little 

 beyond the cejitre ; hypopygium large and cultriform ; terebra 

 elongate, at least as long as the abdomen. Legs stout, as in 

 Pimpla, with short calcaria ; claws elongate, curved and simple. 

 Wings with no areolet ; second transverse recurrent nervure 

 emitted from close to the submarginal, much closer than in 

 Pimjjla ; stigma narrow and lanceolate ; radial cell elongate and 

 extending nearly to the apex ; first recurrent of hind wings 

 straight and not intercepted. 



liange. Assam, Singapore and South Africa. 



Cameron says (Manch. Mem. 1899, p. 193) of the Indian repre- 

 sentatives of this somewhat anomalous genus : " I believe 1 have 

 correctly referred the following species to Brulle's genus. . . . 

 His generic description, however, is very defective in some im- 

 portant points ; and it is quite possible that our species may not 

 belong really to Macrog aster. He places Macrog aster next to 

 Cryptus, but the relationship of our species is undoubtedly with 

 the PiMPLiDES. In neuration it agrees with Eptirhyssa, to [sic] 

 which the species described by Smith (Proc. Linn. Soc, Zool. 1857, 

 p. 121)* is clearly congeneric; but it differs in the mesonotum 

 not being striated, and in other respects." Later (Ann. Nat. 

 Hist. XX. 1907, p. 10) he expressly states that '' 31acrogastei\ 

 Brulle, does not belong to the Pimplin.e"; but there can, I 

 consider, be but little doubt that it is correctly placed here, 

 since it is certainly allied to the AcyENItides in the conformation 

 of the abdomen and subincrassate hind femora. 



* Brulle's inadequate description has certainly been responsible for con- 

 siderable confusion; tlius Smith {loc. cit.) in describing this presumptive 

 Epirhyasa imder the genus Macrogaster says lliat " this species may possibly 

 be a i?/«;yss« with the ])Ctiolated submarginal cell obsolete; tlie neuration of 

 the wing agrees with that of Brulle's genus Macrogaf^tcr. 1 am not acquainted 

 with any other genus to which it could belong ; the aiitennie are those of 

 Bhyssa, not apparently of Macrogaster." 



