22 Mr. J. O. Westwood on the Chalcididce. 



disque;" and placing the depressus (which it may be doubted whether he 

 ever examined, since his characters of the genus do not agree with those 

 possessed by this species,) withDipl. bicolorata, Spin., and Cleon. Cingu- 

 lum, Spin., ined., in his first section of the genus, with the " Tarriere ne 

 depassant pas I'extremite de T abdomen." His other section, " Tarridre 

 depassant I'extremite de I'abdomen," is most probably the genus Eupel- 

 mus, and its species are named compressipes and hemipterus. Spin., ined. 



In the Regne Animal, Vol. III. p. 658, Latreille has reunited his mis- 

 named long-tailed Cynips and Cleonymus with the Pteromalus of Swe- 

 derus, with the expressson, " lis n'ofFrent point les caracteres que nous 

 venons d'indiquer." 



Dalman, in his paper in the Swedish Transactions above referred to, 

 neither adopts the genus Cleonymus of Latreille, nor notices the depressus 

 in his synoptic lists of the species. He has adopted the genus Pteromalus, 

 containing with him no less than seventy-nine species, divided into vari- 

 ous sections and subsections, in the first of each of which " A. Abdomen 

 elonotitum trunco longius saepius acuminatum ;" and " a. Alse distincte ma- 

 culatae," it is not improbable the true Cleonymi will find a place. 



Latreille, in the Families Naturelles, has again revived the genus Cleo- 

 n5nnus, placing it between Pteromalus and Encyrtus. 



The remaining author who has treated upon the former of these genera 

 is Mr. Curtis, who, in his observations upon Colax, shortly notices Cleony- 

 mus as " embracing those species with clouded wings, truncated antennae, 

 the abdomens of the females being similarly shaped to those of Colcix, but 

 lono-er ;" "from being unacquainted with their males," hecould not "enter 

 further upon the subject" of the differences between that genus and Colax.* 

 Having, however, subsequently obtained male specimens of a species with 

 clouded wings, he was induced to consider them as the males of an un- 

 known species of Cleonymus, and shortly afterwards published an 

 account of that genus in his British Entomology, No. 194. A daily, and 

 I might almost say unceasing, attention to the investigation, habits, and 

 structure of the present family for several years past,t enables me, how- 



* British Entomology, 166. 



+ I have adopted the suggestion of Fabricius, vrho long ago remarked, (Phil. 

 Ent, p. 7.) " Pauca (i. e, systemata particularia) jam elaborata invenimus, alia 



