AUSTRALIAN 
HYMENOPTERA CHALCIDOIDEA—VII.* 
The Family Encyrtidee with Descriptions of New Genera and Species. 
By A. A. GIRAULT. 
INTRODUCTION. 
THIS great group, in the Australlian fauna, is very nearly as numerous in species as the 
Eulophide. Five distinct subfamilies are recognised—the Encyrtine, the Eupelmine, the 
Signiphorine, the Taneostigmine and the Aphelinine. The latter group in recent years has 
been placed with the Eulophide, untenably so. 
From a distance, this is the most unlikable family in the chalcidoid series but close 
acquaintance reveals so many fascinating qualities that students, after some experience, will 
no doubt choose it as a favorite. The remarkable diversity in structure, the wonderful color 
patterns, the unique and odd special structural enormities, the great structural likeness of the 
members of a genus, the jumping habit, the present uncertainty regarding relationships, the 
whole diverse and varied panorama is such that the most torpid of interests must finally 
become conscious of a spell. 
The family was to me a ‘‘black beast.’” It had been left until last and finally attacked 
with the determination born of despair. This was due mainly to my inability to place species 
in their proper genera and I must confess that for the first three months during which species 
in this group were steadily described hardly one was placed into its proper genus. My inter- 
pretation of a genus became gradually clearer as experience increased and Ashmead’s (1904) 
tables of the Eneyrtinew, formerly thrown aside as worthless, are now accepted in the main as 
good. The generic differences are smaller than I had thought. Such characters, however, as 
pubescence, sculpture and wing pattern must be ignored as regards genera. 
The genus Hupelmus is large. Ashmead’s table of the Eupelmine must be condemned; 
it is based, in this instance, upon too trifling characters—pubescence on the eyes and the 
incisions of the caudal margins of the abdominal segments are highly variable characters; 
some of the language used is misleading; a number of the genera must fall as synonyms. 
In some of the encyrtine genera, it is extraordinary that two species may oceur which 
are alike in every detail except for some structural characteristic easily overlooked; for example 
Baoanusia magniclava and B. persimilis; in the latter, the axilla are a little separated while 
in the former they are joined and with the usual carina between them. 
The family is open to philosophical treatment of the highest order. 
SUBFAMILY EUPELMIN A. 
Many of the genera in this group have been founded upon two variable characters and 
Ashmead’s table of genera, as stated before, is very poor. It is surprising that the antenne 
have not been used more for principal divisions. Some of the genera, apparently, do not possess 
these organs for all we know to the contrary. 
* Contribution No. 30, Entomological Laboratory, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, Bundaberg, 
Queensland. 
