ITymenopterous Genus Tipliia. 117 



the two genera are not very important on his own showino-, 

 and they certainly are not quite accurate ; the cubitus in the 

 hind wing of the male of Engycystus rufiventris, Cress., can 

 hardly be said to be interstitial with the transverse median 

 nervure, though distinctly nearer to it than in Pteromhrus 

 confusus, Sin. The hind tibiae of the female Pteromhrus 

 cenigmaticus, Sm., are serrate, though not strongly. As far 

 as 1 can see there is absolutely no justification for treating 

 Pteromhrus and Engycystus as separate genera. Ashmead, 

 however, had not seen specimens of Pteromhrus. He also 

 states that he has examined both sexes of E. rufiventris and 

 finds them true Tiphiids; but he makes absolutely no men- 

 tion of important points of difference. The intermediate 

 coxa? of Pteromhrus cenigmaticus $ are contiguous, not 

 widely separated as in Tipliia • the radial cell is closed, and 

 there are three complete cubital cells ; the antennae also are 

 very different. In the male the intermediate coxae are 

 almost, though not quite, contiguous, the neuration of the 

 fore wing resembles that of the female, and the aculeus of 

 the hypopygium is long and recurved as in Myzine, and very 

 much longer than in Tiphia. Ashmead gives as one of the 

 characters of his Tiphiida?, " pygidium in «^ entire." For 

 Tiphia this is correct, but in Pteromhrus t though not deeply 

 slit as in Myzine, it certainly seems to me to be distinctly 

 emarginate in the middle of the apical margin. The points 

 in which an approach to Tiphia may be noticed are the 

 entire eyes and the development" of the stigma. I only know 

 the female of E. rufiventris by Fox's figure and description, 

 which are quite sufficient to show the identity of the genus 

 \\ ith Pteromhrus. In my opinion the male of Pteromhrus is 

 distinctly nearer to Plesia than to Tiphia; whilst the female 

 shows many important points of distinction from both. 

 Ashmead suggests that Engycystus is closely allied to Epomi- 

 diopteron, which he classes in his Tiphiida?, as I think 

 rightly, in spite of the absence of a recurved spine on the 

 hypopygium of the male. But the difference between the 

 two genera is very great, and I gather from his remarks that 

 he had not seen specimens of Epomidiopteron. 



In his classification of his family Cosilidae in the same 

 paper, Ashmead also seems to me to fall into many mistakes 

 probably for want of sufficient material. The intermediae 

 coxae are not, as he states, contiguous, or nearly so, in the 

 females especially they are widely separated, though not 

 quite as widely as in Tiphia. He places Dimorphoptera in 

 his family Myzinidae and Anthohosca in the Thynnidae, 

 though Anthohosca is really the male sex of both Callosila, 



