HYMENOPTERA. — ENTOMOPHAGA. 123 
other insects. From the true aculeated Hymenoptera, to which some 
of the terminal species are allied, they may be distinguished by the 
number of the joints of the antennz, as well as by the structure of 
the ovipositor. There is, however, considerable diversity in the habits 
of the species ; some (forming a portion of the family Cynipidz) resid- 
ing, in the larva state, in galls resembling those of the gallivorous Ten- 
thredinidz. Other species, however, belonging to the same family, 
are parasites. It would also appear, from some recent observations, 
that some of the species of Proctotrupide are fossorial. 
They are characterised by having the abdomen attached to the 
thorax by a small portion only of its transverse diameter ; its basal 
segment being often elongated into a peduncle. The abdomen, in 
the females, is furnished with an elongated plurivalve ovipositor, simi- 
lar in its general construction to that of the Siricide. 
Latreille separated this division into six tribes,—Evaniales, Ichneu- 
monides, Gallicoles, Chalcidites, Oxyures, and Chrysides. These tribes 
were retained by St. Fargeau, who proposed another arrangement of 
them, including the two preceding families (/ncyclopédie Métho- 
dique, tom. x.), as follows : — 
I, A borer in the females. No sting. 
1. Borer of two horny pieces. 
[Fam. 1.  Serrifera. (Tenthredinides. )] 
Fam. 2. Spirifera. Ovipositor spiral, retractile when at rest. (Gallicoles 
and the genus Oryssus. ) 
Fam. 3. Terebellifera. Ovipositor partly lodged at rest in an external 
sheath. 
1 Tribe. Chalcidites. 
2 Tribe. Ichneumonides and Evaniales. 
[3 Tribe. Urocerates, except Oryssus. ] 
2,— Fam. 4. Canalifera. Ovipositor of a single horny piece. (Oxyures 
Latr.) 
TI. A membranous ovipositor of a single piece. A sting, 
Fam. 5. Tubulifera. (Chrysides. ) 
Ican neither adopt the nomenclature nor arrangement of St. Fargeau, 
because neither appear to have a foundation in nature ; the precise con- 
struction of the ovipositor in these different groups not having been cor- 
rectly ascertained, whilst we have already seen that there are no grounds 
for the insertion of the Uroceridee amongst the parasitic insects. In 
two respects, however, St. Fargeau appears to me to have arrived at 
a more natural result than Latreille: Ist, in placing the gall-flies 
next after the saw-flies (in which respect he has been followed by 
