AET. 13 DESCEIPTIOlSrS OP ICHNEUMON-PLIES GUSHMAN 13 



is black) , malar space and cheeks, clypeus, mandibles, palpi, propleura, 

 lower and posterior margins and humeral angle of pronotum, cunei- 

 form spots on sides of mesocutum, scutellum, and postscutellum, meso- 

 pleurum and sternum, except broad mark on upper pleurum and 

 smaller one in position of sternauli, suture between meso- and meta- 

 pleurum, and spot on metapleurum, antennae black, apical margin 

 of scape and lower side of pedicel and of flagellum for two-thirds 

 of its length white, all coxae and trochanters white, front and middle 

 femora and tibiae pale stramineous, hind femur pale testaceous, its 

 tibia white with extreme apex black; tarsi white, apical joints and 

 small apices of basal joints of hind tarsi fuscous; wings hyaline, veins 

 and stigma brownish, tegulae and radices white; abdomen immacu- 

 late above, sternites black, membrane white. 



Male. — ^Antennae white beneath throughout; legs paler; abdomen 

 not attenuate apically, more or less sculptured throughout, tergites 

 not emarginate, second to sixth white at apex; otherwise like female. 



Type locality. — Glen Echo, Maryland. 



Type.— Cat. No. 40442, U.S.N.M. 



Two females and one male, all taken by Robert M. Fonts, the 

 allotype at Washington, District of Columbia. 



Genus HIMERTUS Thomson 



? Hvmerta Foeesteb, Verh. nat. Ver. preuss. Rheinland, vol. 25, 1868, 



p. 200. 

 Eimertus TnoMSoisr, Opusc. Ent., fasc. 9, 1883, p. 926. Grenotype. — {Himer- 



tus Msannulatus Thomson) =Mesoleptus defectivus Gravenhorst. 

 Olepsiporthus Davis, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 24, 1897, p. 325 (not 



Foerster). (New synonymy.) Genotype. — Mesoleptus? ruMginosus 



Oresson. 

 Neoprotarchus Ctjshman, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 64, art. 20, 1924, 



p. 10. (New synonymy.) Genotype. — Neoprotarchus ater Cushman. 



Since the publication of N eoprota^cKus the National Museum has 

 acquired a specimen of the genotype of Hirrvertus as well as speci- 

 mens of another North American species. Comparison of these speci- 

 mens as well as specimens of Glepsiporthus rubiginosus (Cresson) 

 shows no real generic differences. Even the clypeal tooth, character- 

 istic of Neoprotarchus ater., can be considered of no more than 

 specific significance. 



Glepsiporthu^ of Davis is not the same as Foerster's ClepsiportJius. 

 The genotype will not run in Foerster's key to that genus, differing 

 in the key characters under couplets 31 and 33, since the clypeus is 

 distinctly transversely impressed at apex and the alar areolet is 

 lacking. In addition to the genotype, Glepsiporthus -fiavidus Davis 

 seems also to belong to Hiinertus. 



I believe that Schmiedeknecht has erred in placing Himertus in 

 the Euryproctina, for the petiolar foveae (glymmae) are quite as 



