293 
This genus is originally described by Ratzeburg who 
also gave at the same time very fair figures of leg, wing 
and antennæ. However, thanks to Förster (Hym. Stud. 
II part p. 88) for bringing confusion with the name 
at once. Förster writes (with reference to Poropoea): — 
. Es unterliegt keinem Zweifel, dass Ratzeburg in sei- 
ner Gattung Ophioneurus die er im Jahre 1852 aufstellte 
und nach seiner Aufgabe ebenfals aus Aftelabus curcu- 
lionoides erzogen wurde, dasselbe Thierchen vor Augen 
gehabt hat. Sein Ophioneurus simplex wird deshalb als 
Synonym zu Poropoea stollwerckii gezogen werden müssen, 
dagegen hat er noch eine neue Art Poropoea signata (= 
Ophioneurus signatus Ratzb.) aus den Blattwickelungen 
von Rhynchites betule erhalten — In this manner Ratze- 
burgs genus is in a way killed and buried for ever, and 
for the future O. simplex is placed under Poropoea, and 
from 1858 O. signata under Chaetostricha and the later 
scientists have been unable to correct the error as Ratze- 
burgs species has not been found again later. Dalla Torre 
does not add the generic name Ophioneurus in his ca- 
talogue, just as little as Ashmead has it in his so often 
quoted work. 
Wolff, p. 555. at last, is the first of the more recent 
authors who mentions Ophioneurus and he has even been 
so fortunate that he has had a specimen — although de- 
fective — for examination, but he nevertheless still regards 
the species as belonging to the genus Chaetostricha(Walker). 
Neither has Wolff been able to unravell the mystery by 
means of this defective gummed specimen from Ratze- 
burg’sduplicates. However by following Ratzeburg’s figures 
the question solves itself, the drawings showing an an- 
tenna with 9 joints, whilst Chaetostricha dimidata, accor- 
ding to Walker’s description only has 6 joints, but as he 
has evidently overlooked the anellus, on which point I 
fully agree with Wolff, it should have 7 joints. 
From Ratzeburgs description it can be further seen that 
