British Braconidce. 121 



C. oculator, Thorns., Opiisc. Ent., vi., 1874, p, 564, 



<? ? , is placed in a section characterised by the deeply 

 reflexed edges of the emarginations of the mesosternum 

 which receive the fore coxae. I have failed to discover 

 this character in British specimens of any species. 

 Moreover, the metathorax is described as " concinne 

 minus fortiter punctatus," which is inapplicable to our 

 species. 



C. cyUndrus, Nees, Mon., i., 291, c? . Antennae 29- 

 {i. e.* 28-) jointed. Perhaps the same as C. oculator, 

 Wesm. Nees has taken great pains to show that it is 

 not his C. ocidatus. 



C. scaher, Nees., Mon., i., 297, 3' ? , was regarded by 

 the author as doubtfully distinct from his ocidatus. 

 Length, 2 — 2|- lin. Body stouter and more compact ; 

 abdomen shorter, more oval, without basal carina — 

 which Nees declares to be never wanting in his oculatus, 

 another proof of the diversity of that species from 

 ocidator, Wesm. — seldom with yellowish spots ; femora 

 black, only the fore pair rufous at the apex ; tibiae pale 

 testaceous, not rufous, the middle pair always darker at 

 the apex, generally fuscous with the base pale ; wings 

 darker than in oculatus ; scutellum not smooth in the 

 middle. Antennae not described. (Compare C. carho- 

 nator, sp. 4, infra). This is said by Haliday and Curtis 

 to be the same as C annulipes, Wesm., which Wesmael 

 himself expressly denies ; by Thomson it is joined doubt- 

 fully to his C. huccatns, which is insufficiently described. 

 Ichneumon scahrator, Fab., E. S., ii., 174, quoted by 

 Nees as a synonym, is not now in the Banksian col- 

 lection. 



Euthe in his collection distributed the specimens which 

 stand under the name C. ocuhUus, Nees, into three 

 varieties ; (a) rufipcs (b) variipcs, and (c) nigripes := scah- 

 rator, Fab. But his views on the affinities of the 

 Cheloni were unfortunately never published. 



2. Chclonus suhmnticus, Wesm. 



Chclonns suhmnticus, Wesm., Nouv. Mem. Ac. Brux., 



1835, p. 218, 3 ? . 

 Similar to the preceding, but witli different antennae. Those of 

 the ? are as long as f of the body, 26-jointed (27- according to 



''• As Nees reckons the radicle, it is necessary always to subtract 

 1 from his enumerations. 



