KNOWLEDGE OF THE BRITISH BRACONID&. 289 
1835, p. 162. Owing, no doubt, to an oversight this species has 
been confused by Marshall with another (see 7. geminator), and 
has apparently been overlooked in this country. 
Wesmael says that, besides being much smaller, it differs 
from Z. testaceator :—‘‘1. En ce que les tarses ne sont pas plus 
pales que le reste des pieds; 2. le dos de abdomen du male est 
entierement fauve testacé; 38. Tariére de la femelle dans l’etat 
de repos n’est pas saillante, parce qu’elle est trop courte pour 
dépasser l’éxtremité dorsale de l’abdomen.” 
Nees considered his Rhogas chloropthalmus to be the Bracon 
chloropthalma of Spinola, but, as Marshall remarks, this cannot 
be proved.* 
Among Fitch’s insects I found a female which agrees per- 
fectly with the descriptions of Nees and Wesmael. It was bred 
by G. Elisha, July 17th, 1884, from a larva of Depressaria 
alstreemeriana. The specimen is 7 mm. long and 12 mm. in 
expanse, wings hyaline, terebra concealed, recurrent nervure 
rejected by a distance equal to the length of the first abscissa of 
the radius, and the radial areolet of the hind wing not geminated 
by a transverse nervure. 
Z. geminator (nom. nov.) == Z. chloropthalmus, Hal. Ent. Mag. 
il. 142; Marsh, Trans. Entom. Soc. 1888, p. 199; Bignell, 
Trans. Dey. Ass. for Advan. Science, &c., 1901, p. 657; Morley, 
Entom. xl. p. 254.—In the Ent. Mag. for 1836 Haliday described 
a species under the name of Z. chloropthalmus, which he con- 
sidered synonymous with Rhogas chloropthalmus of Nees.t He 
was at that time, as we know, unacquainted with the work of 
Wesmael, who, the year before, 1835, had described his Phylax 
chloropthalmus t also as synonymous with the Neesian species. 
In Wesmael’s description the radial areolet of the hind wing is 
given as not geminated, while Haliday is most emphatic in 
saying that it is divided by a transverse nervure. Therefore, it 
is very evident that the synonymy of either Wesmael or Haliday 
must be wrong. Inthe description of Nees, unfortunately, no 
mention is made of the neuration of the hind wing, but it is 
extremely unlikely that so careful an observer would have 
omitted to note such an important character as the gemination 
of the radial areolet, had it occurred in the insect he described. 
We may, I think, take it that Rhogas chloropthalmus, Nees = 
Phylax chloropthalmus; Wesm., which necessitates the bestowal 
of a new name on Haliday’s insect. For this well-marked 
species I therefore suggest the name of Zele geminator, and sub- 
join a copy of Haliday’s description :— 
“Fem. precedenti similis (Z%. testaceator) statura tota 
gracilior; abdomen brevius, clavatum, minus compressum ; 
aculeo ascendente, vix apicem abdominis superante ; pedes 
* Trans. Entom. Soc., 1888, part 3, p. 800. 
+ Nees, Mon., i. 202. t Nouv. Mem. Ac. Brux.,, p. 162, 
