320 Dr. J. Chestor Bradley on the Status of 



the ordinaiy rules o£ type-fixation must be applied. The 

 opinion, however, leaves a little uncertainty, wliether in such 

 cases any of those species first included may be chosen as 

 type, or whether it must be one tliat agrees with t\\Q, 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,'' it would seem that the selection must 

 be restricted to such of the first-published species as do come 

 under the generic description a-5 originally published, and 

 that if none of them come under it they are none of them 

 available. Mr. Viereck, in fixing the tj'pes of the genera of 

 Ichneumonoidea, has evidently thought otherwise. 



Thomson (1888, Opusc. Ent. xii. 1194) established a 

 genus Parabatus, without any reference to Foerster's name 

 Purahates. In it he recognised two sections and four species 

 as follows : Section A, without areolet \_=:Parabates in sense 

 of Foerster's description], nic/ricarpuf, sp. n. ; Section B, 

 latungula, sp. n.^virgatus, Grav. [i.e. Fourcroy), and cristaius, 

 sp. n. 



The first mention of species, in connection with Foerster's 

 original name Parabates, seems to have been in Dalle Torre's 

 ' Catalogus Hymenopteroriim,' iii. p, 75 (1903). The four 

 species included by Thomson under Parabatus and four 

 others are included under the generic name Parabates. 



According to the code (Article 36, Recommendations) 

 Parabatus, Thomson, is potentially at least a distinct genus 

 from Parabates, Foerster, whether they are synonyms 

 de|)ending entirely upon the fixation of the type of each and 

 upon whether the tyj)es are congeneric. Viereck (191-4) has 

 fixed, correctly, the type oi Parabatus , Thomson, as virgatus 

 [Ichneumon virgatus, Fourcroy). J\tr. Viereck (1914) al.^o 

 designates virgatus^ Fourcroy, as the type of Parabates, 

 Foerster, which would make Parabates and Parabatus identi- 

 cal, as is desirable. However, it does not seem that this is 

 permissible. Ichneumon 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 f agrees with Foerster's 



* Opheltoideiis johnsoni, Ashmead, 1900, a Nearctic species, may be 

 congeneric with Parabatus nigricarpus, Thomson, and lilse it lacks an 



