KNOWLEDGE OF THE BRITISH BRACONIDiE. 289 



1835, p. 162. Owing, no doubt, to an oversight this species has 

 been confused by Marshall with another (see Z. geminator), and 

 has apparently been overlooked in this country. 



Wesmael says that, besides being much smaller, it differs 

 from Z. testaceator: — " 1. En ce que les tarses ne sont pas plus 

 pales que le reste des pieds ; 2. le dos de I'abdomen du male est 

 entierement fauve testac6 ; 3. Tariere de la femello dans I'etat 

 de repos n'est pas saillante, parce qu'elle est trop courte pour 

 depasser I'extremite dorsale de rabdomen." 



Nees considered his Rhogas chloropthalmus to be the Bracon 

 chloropthalma of Spinola, but, as Marshall remarks, this cannot 

 be proved.* 



Among Fitch's insects I found a female which agrees per- 

 fectly with the descriptions of Nees and Wesmael. It was bred 

 by G. Elisha, July 17th, 1884, from a larva of Depressaria 

 alstroemeriana. The specimen is 7 mm. long and 12 mm. in 

 expanse, wings hyaline, terebra concealed, recurrent nervure 

 rejected by a distance equal to the length of the first abscissa of 

 the radius, and the radial areolet of the hind wing not geminated 

 by a transverse nervure. 



Z. geminator (nom. nov.) ^ Z. chloropthalmus, Hal. Ent. Mag. 

 iii. 142; Marsh, Trans. Entom. Soc. 1888, p. 199; Bignell, 

 Trans. Dev, Ass. for Advan. Science, &c., 1901, p. 657; Morley, 

 Entom. xl. p. 254.— In the Ent. Mag. for 1836 Haliday described 

 a species under the name of Z. chloropthalmus, which he con- 

 sidered synonymous with Rhogas chloropthalmus of Nees.t He 

 was at that time, as we know, unacquainted with the work of 

 Wesmael, who, the year before, 1835, had described his Phylax 

 chloropthalmus I also as synonymous with the Neesian species. 

 In Wesmael's description the radial areolet of the hind wing is 

 given as not geminated, while Haliday is most emphatic in 

 saying that it is divided by a transverse nervure. Therefore, it 

 is very evident that the synonymy of either Wesmael or Haliday 

 must be wrong. In the description of Nees, unfortunately, no 

 mention is made of the neuration of the hind wing, but it is 

 extremely unlikely that so careful an observer would have 

 omitted to note such an important character as the gemination 

 of the radial areolet, had it occurred in the insect he described. 

 We may, I think, take it that Rhogas chloropthalmus, Nees = 

 Phylax chloropthalmus, Wesm., which necessitates the bestowal 

 of a new name on Haliday's insect. For this well-marked 

 species I therefore suggest the name of Zele geminator, and sub- 

 join a copy of Haliday's description : — 



" Fem. prsecedenti similis {Z. testaceator) statura tota 

 gracilior ; abdomen brevius, clavatum, minus compressum ; 

 aculeo ascendente, vix apicem abdominis superante ; pedes 



- Trans. Entom. Soc, 1888, part 3, p. 300. 



f Nees, Mon., i. 202. \ Nouv. Mem. Ac. Brux., p. 162. 



