-: ICHNEUMONIDjE. 



distinct, face centrally carinate ; clypeus rounded or with the sides 

 slightly oblique at the apex, basally indistinctly discrete ; lower 

 mandibular tooth large, the upper smaller. Antennae stout and 

 never as slender as those of Ithyssa or Pimpla. Thorax stout ; 

 mesonotum not transversely striate ; notauli distinctly impressed, 

 their middle lobe small and triangular, basally transverse, strongly 

 punctate and often elevated ; metanotum with more or less dis- 

 tinct, though never complete, areae and large linear spiracles. 

 Scutelluni hardly elevated, laterally immarginate and basally im- 

 pressed ; postscutellum basally bifoveolate. Abdomen stout, 

 glabrous and nitidulous, neither punctate nor strigose, and with 

 no impressions ; basal segment less stout than in Pimpla, not 

 discally bicarinate and of variable form, with the spiracles a little 

 beyond the centre ; hypopygium large and cultrit'orm ; terebra 

 elongate, at least as long as the abdomen. Legs stout, as in 

 Pimpla, with short calcaria ; claws elongate, curved and simple. 

 Wings with no areolet ; second transverse recurrent nervure 

 emitted from close to the submarginal, much closer than in 

 Pimpla ; stigma narrow and lanceolate : radial cell elongate and 

 extending nearly to the apex ; first recurrent of hind wings 

 straight and not intercepted. 



Range. Assam, Singapore and South Africa. 



Cameron says (Mooch. Mem. 1899, p. 193) of the Indian repre- 

 sentatives of this somewhat anomalous genus : " I believe I have 

 correctly referred the following species to Brulle's genus. . . . 

 His generic description, however, is very defective in some im- 

 portant points ; and it is quite possible that our species may not 

 belong really to Macroc/aster. He places Macrogaster next to 

 Cryptus, but the relationship of our species is undoubtedly with 

 the PIMPLIDES. In neuration it agrees with Epirhyssa, to [*tc] 

 which the species described by Smith (Proc. Linn. Soc., Zool. Ib57, 

 p. 121)* is clearly congeneric; hut it differs in the mesonotnm 

 not being striated, and in other respects." Later (Ann. Nat. 

 Hist. xx. 1907, p. 16) he expressly states that " Macroyaster, 

 Brulle, does not belong to the PIMPLIN^;"; but there can, I 

 consider, be but little doubt that it is correctly placed here, 

 since it is certainly allied to the AC.ENITIDES in the conformation 

 of the abdomen and subincrassate hind femora. 



* Bruit's inadequate description has certainly been responsible for con- 

 siderable confusion; thus Smith (loc. tit.) in describing this presumptive 

 pir*MM under the genus Macrogaster says that " this species may possibly 

 be a Rhyssa with the petiolated submarginal cell obsolete; the neuration of 

 the wing agrees with that of Brulle's genus Macrogaster. I am not acquainted 

 with any other genus to which it could belong ; the antenna' are those of 

 Rhytta, not apparently of Macrogaster." 



