MONOGKAFH OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PROCTOTRYPID.E. 25 



Subsequently, farther on in the body of the work, Forster again 

 subdivides his family Uryinoidie into three families: DryinoidsB, Embo- 

 lemoid.'e, and Bethyloidae. He then follows wita his generic tables, in 

 which, including the Mymaroida', no less than one hundred and twenty- 

 one genera are defined, about seventy being new. 



Dr. riirster's work is by far the most pliilosophical, satisfactory, and 

 important contribution published on this intricate family, and has 

 formed the basis of my own work. Since his day, not taking into con- 

 sideration mere descriptive work, no systematic work has been at- 

 tempted except a short paper by A. H. Haliday, published in the Dublin 

 Natural History Review, 1857 ; a series of articles by the Swedish ento- 

 mologist C. (t. Thomson, published in Ofversig af Kongliga Svenska 

 Vetenskaps-Akademiens Forhandlingar, from 1857 to 1859, and an 

 excellent contribution by Prof. J. O. Westwood on the subfamily Bethyl- 

 lides, in his Thesaurus Entomologicus Oxoniensis, 1874. 



Haliday, in his paper, proposed some new genera in the Diapriidas 

 (probably before seeing Forster's work) that unfortunately prove to be 

 synonyms of some of those chara(;terized by Forster. 



Thomson's contribution is much more elaborate ; besides describing 

 some new genera he separated the family into eleven tribes (defined, 

 but without a synoptic; table), arranged as follows: 



Tribus I. Proctotrupiiii. 

 II. Btlytini. 



III. Ceraphronini. 



IV. Diapriini. 

 V. Isiuaiiui. 



VI, Heloi-ini. 

 VII. Sceiiouini. 

 VIII. riat.vgasteiini. 

 IX. Telenomini. 

 X. Uryinini. 

 XI. I"]pyrini. 



It is also quite evident that Thomson, in the beginning of his studies 

 in the family, was una<'quainted with Forster's work; and, considering 

 this fact, his tribes agree quite closely with the families proposed by 

 Forster. His tribus xi, Fpyrini, equals the BethyloidjD of Forster. In 

 separating the Ismarini from the Belytoijhe and the Telenomini from 

 the Scelionoida^ and elevating them to an e(iual rank with his other 

 tribes it appears to me Thomson gave too much importance to trivial 

 characters. 



The arrangement of his tribes also does not show the relationship 

 they bear to each other. I (H)nsider the Ceraphronini much more 

 closely allied to the Epyrini and Dryinini, while he has them widely 

 separated. The Belytini and the Diapriini are unquestionably closely 

 allied, and he has interpolated the Ceraphronini between them; while 

 ihe Helorini he places next to the Scelionini, with which they have few 



