304 
The description of this genus by Walker is so short, 
that it should almost appear impossible to form any opi- 
nion of the species. The various authors whø, in the 
course of time, have gone to great trouble to finally 
settle the synonymis, have worked without success. 
Dalla Torre in Cat. Hym. Vol. 5, has believed that 
Chaetostricha Walker is the same as Chaetostricha För- 
ster, Lathromeris Förster, Ophioneurus Ratzbg. and Tri- 
chogramma Riley, Packard. However, Schmiedeknecht 
would not regard Ophioneurus as a synonym of Chaeto- 
sfricha although Reinhard on the other hand does so. Wolff 
(1915) again revives Dalla Torres list of synonyms, 
whithout bringing forward anything new. Thus he con- 
siders Chaetostricha dimidiata (Walker 1851), Ophioneu- 
rus grandis (Thomson 1878), Lathromeris scutellaris (För- 
ster 1856) and Ophioneurus signatus as belonging to 
one genus. From the preceding pages it can be seen 
however, that Thomsons Ophioneurus grandis is identical 
with Poropoea Stollwerckii Förster, that Lathromeris scu- 
fellaris is a good genus and species and that Ratzeburgs 
Ophioneurus signatus also is an easily distinguishable 
genus and species, and that all these three last mentioned 
species are quite distinct from Walkers Chaetostricha 
The genus Chaetostricha will therefore remain with only 
one species Chaetostricha dimidiata Walker, and it now 
remains to find out how this species appears and whether 
the genus is really a good one. 
Walkers description of both genus and species are cer- 
tainly very short, but when taking two main points: — 
wings with hairs in rows, the seven jointed antenna, of 
which the three joints form the clavus, there is really 
- nothing to confound it amongst the European genera; 
at the same time no regard must be paid to the fact 
that Walker describes the antenna without annellus, he 
only mentioning scape, pedicellus, funiculus and the three 
