330 
recognized when a certain amount of material is at hand, 
I have at the present state of things been unwilling to . 
go to a splitting of the genus Oligosita. Neither have I, 
on account of the war, been able to get the drawings of 
the species in the Berlin Museum, which should be re- 
quired in order to make a just decision in this question. 
About the genus Westwoodella Ashm. 
About Westwoodella Ashmead (1904. Mem. Carnegie 
Museum. Vol I. p. 359—360) is to say: 
The genus Westwoodella does not exist at all. Ashmead 
who creates the genus on Westwood’s Oligosita sub- 
fasciata, is of the belief that the species is a native of 
Ceylon. He apparantly quite overlooks the remarks in 
Trans. Linn. Soc. London. Vol I p. 591, fifth line from top 
which runs as follows: Habitat Richmond Park, comit 
Surrey, mense Augusto capta. 
However it is quite easy to see how Ashmead’s error 
has occurred. If when reading further where quoted, the 
description of Oligosita subfasciata follows on lines 6— 
22. Then without hyphen or other clear point of sepa- 
ration from this description is continued on line 23 and 
further: Amongst the numerous minute Hymenoptera col- 
lected at or near Colombo by Mr. Staniforth Green..... 
These lines form the introduction to the description 
of Oligosita staniforthii, Oligosita nodicornis etc. which 
can be casily overlooked as the whole page appears as 
one complete article all referring to Oligosita subfasciata. 
The fact that Ashmead makes use of the shading on the 
wings, so common amongst the European species, as an 
additional character for the genus, does not in any way 
improve the matter. 
