262 Eev. T. A. Marshall's monograph of 



In 1837 Wesmael divided Microdiis into two subgenera, 

 Eariniis and TlieropliiliiH, characterised by the presence 

 or absence of the nervure dividing the 1st cubital areolet 

 from the prsediscoidal. Forster, in 1862, published the 

 same two divisions as genera, but with new names, 

 Diatmetus and Eumicrodus* Eeinhard, the latest writer 

 upon this group, has judiciously sanctioned the names 

 Earinus and Microdns, which are here adopted. In 

 Forster's Synoi>tical Table we find Micwdvs and its 

 allies erected into a new subfamily, distinct from Afiathis, 

 which he calls Eumicrodoidce, but which others might 

 prefer to write Eumicrodontouhe. The alleged ground of 

 separation is nothing but the comparative length or 

 shortness of the face, which in our opinion is not a 

 sufficient reason for the establishment of a subfamily, 

 the rest of the structure in both groups being similar. 

 At this rate Vijyio must constitute a new subfamily apart 

 from Bracon, and our Aj^anteles naso (ante, sp. 43), with 

 two cognate species described by Reinhard, should form 

 another group equal in value to the Microgasterides. 

 Declining to admit this inconsistency, we have regarded 

 Agathis, Microdns and their allies, as forming one 

 natural subfamily, Agathididcs. The genus Orgilus, 

 Hal. {Ischius, Wesm.), was invented for the reception of 

 Microdns obscnrcitor, Nees, having only two cubital 

 areolets, and otherwise aberrant ; to which have since 

 been added a few more species. 



Table of Genera. 



(6) 1. Three cubital areolets in the fore wings. 



(3) 2. Face triangularly jDroducecl, rostriform .. i. Agathis, Lafr. 

 (2) 3. Face of the usual form. 



(5) 4. First cubital areolet separated by a distinct 



nervure from the prrediscoidal . . . . ii. Eaiunus, Wesm, 



(4) 5. First cubital areolet not so separated . . iii. Microdus, Nees. 

 (1) 6. Two cubital areolets in the fore wings , . iv. Orgilus, Hal. 



■■' Forster objected to Microdus that it had already been used as 

 the name of a genus of fishes, and therefore proposed to call it 

 Eu7nicroii'iis. According to entomological rules this is not neces- 

 sary, for the name in ichthyology is Microdoji , which is not quite 

 the same; and fiu'ther, Microdon (like Mastodon, Mcgalodon, and 

 many more) being wrongly formed, sliould not take precedence 

 over the correctly-spelt Microdus. 



