44 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS liam a02 
opinion have a spindel shaped abdomen and for which he proposes to 
use Foerster’s term Mesochoroidae. 
Of the Ashmeadian groups Mr. Szepligeti treats the Plectiscini, 
(omitting the available genera Hambergiella Roman, Mischoxvurides 
Ashmead, Clepticus Haliday, Symphylus Foerster, Acroblapticus Schmie- 
deknecht, Campothreptus Foerster, Zarhynchus Ashmead, Rhynchothy- 
reus Ashmead, and Grypocentrus Ruthe); the Mesochorini, (omitting 
Thymaris Foerster, which he probably holds with others as belonging 
to the Tryphoninae and Edrisa Cameron) ; the Campoplegini excepting 
the genera with compressed abdomen, (omitting Phobocampa Thomson, 
Paurolexis Cameron, Enytus Cameron, Neobosmina Cameron, and 
Dusona Cameron) ; the Banchini, which he would place in the Pimplinae 
near Lissonotini, (omitting Agathilla Westwood and Nawaia Ash- 
mead); the Paniscini, which he says belongs to the Tryphoninae, 
(omitting Bucheckerius Schulz and Paropheltes Cameron) ; the Hell- 
wigiini (omitting Diamon Gistel) ; the Nesomesochorini which he per- 
sistently misspells as Neomeschorinae and which he holds belongs to 
the Tryphoninae, (in this view the writer cannot concur as the Nesome- 
sochorus Ashmead is almost morphologically identical with Nonnus 
Cresson and should be placed near Zachresta Foerster according io 
present day classifications) ; and the Megacerinae a group not in Ash- 
mead’s classification and held by Szepligeti to belong to the Tryphoninae. 
No attempt is made in the work under consideration to bring up to 
date the first part of the Ophioninae published by the same author, so 
the available genera omitted from that part are not accounted for— 
these genera are Odontagrypon Cameron in the Anomalini, Ophion- 
oneura Cameron, Enicospilus Stephens and Genophion Felt in the 
Ophionini and Hiatensor Brues and Protoheliwigia Brues of the 
Ophioninae. 
The chief feature of this classification is the attempt to treat the Ophion- 
inae with a more or less fusiform abdomen and usually round propo- 
deal spiracles as a separate group from those having a compressed 
abdomen and with the propodeal spiracles usually elongate. In effect this 
is toapply Foerster’s division of the Campoplegini to the whole Ophion- 
inae. Inasmuch as these characters are of doubtful value as a means 
to a definite end even in the Campoplegini, and owiny to the fact that 
there are numerous examples of intermediates between completely com- 
pressed abdomen and fusiformly compressed abdomen and between 
round and elongate propodeal spiracles, the reviewer is of the opinion 
that the present classification does not clear up the situation, but makes 
the classification more unsatisfactory than ever. Are not the difficulties 
attendant on separating Ichneumonidae into groups through the use of 
the depression or compression of the abdomen great enough without 
