DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW HYMENOPTERA. 437 



pale, black at the base. Thorax smooth and shining ; the median 

 segment thickly covered with long fuscous hairs ; the depression 

 at the base of the seutellum is deep and is stoutly erenulated. 

 Wings hyaline, with a slight, but distinct, fuscous tinge ; the nervures 

 and stigma black. Legs black, thickly covered with a white pubes- 

 cence, the cos8e with white hair. Abdomen ovate, the petiole depressed 

 at the base ; the apex raised, its base smooth and with an oblique 

 slope ; the apex coarsely reticulated ; the second and third segments are 

 closely, coarsely, longitudinally punctured ; the base of the second 

 segment is reticulated in the middle, where there is a longitudinal keel, 

 which is widened at the base, the widened part becoming gradually 

 narrowed and is hollowed ; the suturiform articulation is wide and 

 deep, striated, bifurcated at the sides, the hinder fork being the shorter. 

 Ohs. — I have above compared this genus to Spinaria^ and undoubted- 

 ly it is closely related to that genus as I have understood it when I 

 described two Indian species, that is to say, it is to be referred to the 

 Cydostomi, but, according to some authors, Spinaria is related to the 

 Cryptogastres — Chelonus, &c., Brulle (Hymen., iv., 512), who described 

 the genus for the first time, placed it in the Cryptogastres^ in which he 

 is followed by Marshall (Species I., Hym., iv., p. 307), who says that 

 there are " parmi les Cryptogastres exotiques des genres comme Fornicia 

 et Spinaria que offrent une certaine ressemblance avec les Cydostomes.''^ 

 So far as the Indian species known to me are concerned they must be 

 referred to the Cydostomes, inasmuch as they have the mouth widely 

 and roundly incised as in Bracon and not transverse and entire as in 

 Chelonus^ &c. The form of the head, thorax and wings in our Indian 

 species is exactly as it is with the Cydostomi ; the form of the abdo- 

 men has a certain resemblance to what we find with some of the 

 Cryptogastres, but that, however, is hardly sufficient to warrant the 

 genus being placed among them, considering how close is the agree- 

 ment with Bracon in other respects. It is somewhat remarkable that 

 neither Brulle {I.e.), Westwood, in his monograph of the genus (Tijd- 

 sehr. voor Entomologie, 1882) nor any other author make any men- 

 tion of the form of the mouth. We must, therefore, either assume 

 that they have overlooked the fact that the species described by them 

 have the oral structure of Bracon^ or, if they really have the clypeus 

 of Chelonus, then the species I have described from India must be 

 referred to a new genus. 



