1910] Girault and Sanders —Chalcidoid Parasites 153 
progeny of the preceding number; accession Nos. 40,299 and 41,- 
001, 2 °’s. (13) 5 %’s, 9 *’s reared as in lot 4; discarded. (14) 3 
J’s, 12 *’s +42 reared October 4 with several Spalangia and 1 ¢ 
Pachycrepoideus dubius, from 57 Musca domestica puparia, exposed 
to infestation September 8-11; accession No. 40,171, 3 °’s, 12 2’. 
(15) 22 *’s+8 reared from 30 of the same lot as 14, the same spe- 
cies present in larger numbers, October 11; accession, No. 40,205, 
22 *’s. (16) 1 * collected in insectary around fly-breeding cages, 
September 10, parent of the next number; accession No. 39,965, 1 *. 
(17) 7 *’s reared in confinement from 7 puparia of Musca domestica 
October 1, progeny of the single female of the preceding; accession 
No. 40,169, 5 ®’s. (18)°, 1 %, each removed October 13 from single 
puparia of Phormia regina (Meigen) obtained from garbage at the 
city dumping-grounds, Champaign, September 23 ; accession No. 40,- 
my, 
217, 1 %,1. (19) 1 ° reared froma larva of Phormia regina, col- 
lected in garbage at the city dumping-grounds, Champaign, October 
21, and removed from the capsule containing the host larva on No- 
vember 6; accession No. 40,258, 1 ©. (20) 2 @’s, 2 *’s reared from 
four Musca domestica puparia September 29, parents of the next 
number; accession No. 40,242, 2 °’s, 2 *’s. (21) 2 ®’s reared in con- 
finement from two puparia of Phormia regina (Meigen), October 
19, progeny of the preceding; accession No. 40,243, 2 °’s. (22 
3 2's, 3 *’s reared from six Musca domestica puparia, September 
30, parents of the next; accession No. 40,244, 3 %’s, 3 °’s. (23) 41 
¢, 1 * reared in confinement from two puparia of Phormia regina 
(Meigen), October 19, progeny of the preceding; accession No. 
40,945, 1S, 1 ?. 
BrotocicaLt Novtes. 
The brief duration of the investigations and the lack of time and 
opportunity prevented an extensive study of the life-history and 
biology of this parasite, and because of its lesser abundance and 
the somewhat greater difficulty experienced in handling it in con- 
finement, not as much was learned concerning it as in the case of 
Nasonia brevicornis Ashm. It is more sensitive than the latter, has 
an apparently limited number of hosts and is solitary; yet, not- 
withstanding these, with time and opportunity, its biological history 
could be learned with ease in the laboratory, as the females are not 
