134 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



EpinepJiele jurtina. Abundant everywhere, almost a pest. 

 E. tithonus. Uncommon in this district. A few taken. 



Aphantojms hyperanthus. Abundant along edges of woods 

 and in clearings. First observed near Auxi-le-Chateau about 

 June 20th. 



Coenonympha pamphilus. Very common everywhere. 



Erebia cetJiiops. Two specimens taken in early July. 



Melanargia galatea. Extremely abundant, with several minor 

 variations. 



Total. — Fifty species taken. 



CONTEIBUTIONS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE 

 BRITISH BRACONID^. 



No. 4. — Rhogadid^. 



By G. T. Lyle, F.E.S. 



Dr. Nees von Essenbeck included in his genus Rogas the 

 Macrocentridce and also the genus Ademori, Hal.; these, however, 

 differ from the true Rhogadidce in having the clypeus fitting closely 

 to the mandibles and so doing away with the semicircular oral 

 aperture which is so prominent a feature in all the tribes 

 comprised in the Cyclostomi of Wesmael. The Macrocentrida 

 may be readily distinguished from the Rhogadidce, but Ademoii 

 has certainly a very close resemblance to Rhogas, and its true 

 position is still a matter of doubt. Wesmael, Reinhard and 

 Marshall considered it to belong to the Opiidce, while Morley 

 follows Haliday and Forster in placing it with the Rliogadidce. 

 Ashmead takes a somewhat different view and includes Adeinon 

 in bis Rhyssalini. 



The "species genuinae " of Nees have been divided into five 

 genera — Pelecystoma, Wesm., Heterogamus, Wesm.^ Rhogas, Nees, 

 Petalodes, Wesm., and Clinocentrus, Hal. Of these the first four 

 fpJl very naturally together, but the last differs somewhat widely 

 from the others, approaching much nearer to the ExocJiecidce. 



Since the appearance of Bignell's list of Devonshire 

 BraconidcB in 1901, scarcely a note on our British Rhogadidce 

 has been published, with the exception of Morley's interesting 

 paper in the 'Entomologist' for 1916 (vol. xlix, p. 83). My 

 knowledge of the tribe is anything but extensive, but few of 

 the species being common, and only very rarely does a 

 correspondent send me a bred specimen — no doubt owing to 

 the inconspicuous nature of the cocoons, or rather the indurated 

 skins of the host larvae containing parasite cocoons, which must 

 frequently be thrown away by the less observant collectors as 

 defunct caterpillars. 



