320 Dr. J. Chester Bradley on the Status of 
the ordinary rules of type-fixation must be applied. The 
opinion, however, leaves a little uncertainty, whether in such 
cases any of those species first included may be chosen as 
type, or whether it must be one that agrees with the original 
generic definition. In view, however, of the fact that the 
opinion says “the genus contains all of the species of the 
world which would come under the generic description as 
originally published,” if would seem that the selection must 
be restricted to such of the-first-published species as do come 
under the generic description as originally published, and 
that if none of them come under it they are none of them 
available. Mr. Viereck, in fixing the types of the genera of 
Ichneumonoidea, has evidently thought otherwise. 
Thomson (1888, Opuse. Ent. xii. 1194) established a 
genus Parabatus, without any reference to Foerster’s name 
Parabates. In it he recognised two sections and four species 
as follows: Section A, without areolet [= Parabates in sense 
of Foerster’s description], nigricarpus, sp. n.; Section B, 
latungula, sp. n., virgatus, Gray. (?.e. Fourcroy), and cristatus, 
sp. n. 
Phe first mention of species, in connection with Foerster’s’ 
original name Paradates, seems to have been in Dalle Torre’s 
‘Catalogus Hymenopterorum,’ ili. p. 75 (1903). The four 
species included by Thomson under Parabatus and four 
others are included under the generic name Parabates. 
Aceording to the code (Article 36, Recommendations) 
Parabatus, Thomson, is potentially at least a distinct genus 
from Parabates, Foerster, whether they are synonyms 
depending entirely upon the fixation of the type of each and 
upon whether the types are congeneric. Viereck (1914) has 
fixed, correctly, the type of Parabatus, Thomson, as virgatus 
(Ichneumon virgatus, Fourcroy). Mr. Viereck (1914) also 
designates virgatus, Fourcroy, as the type of Parabates, 
Foerster, which would make Parabates and Parabatus identi- 
eal, as is desirable. However, it does not seem that this is 
permissible. Ichnewmon virgatus, Fourcroy, does not fall 
under the generic definition of Foerster’s Parabates (in as 
much as it always possesses an areolet, as I have pointed 
out). It would, therefore, seem that it must be excluded 
from consideration as type of the genus. The only known 
Palearctic * species that normally t agrees with Foerster’s 
* Opheltoideus johnsoni, Ashmead, 1900, a Nearctic species, may be 
congeneric with Parabatus nigricarpus, Thomson, and like it lacks an 
