6 M. W. R. de V. GRAHAM 



Leningrad), Dr. O. Peck (Entomology Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada), Dr. J. F. 

 Perkins (British Museum (Nat. Hist.)), Dr. Borge Petersen (Universitets Zoologiske 

 Museum, Copenhagen), Prof. O. W. Richards (Imperial College of Science and 

 Technology, London), Miss G. Roche (National Museum of Ireland, Dublin), Dr. H. 

 von Rosen (Statens Vaxtskyddsanstalt, Solna, Stockholm), Mr. A. W. Stelfox 

 (Newcastle, Co. Down, N. Ireland), Dr. T. Tachikawa (Ehime University, Mat- 

 suyama, Japan), The Trustees of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), Prof. S. L. Tuxen 

 (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen), Mr. E. Valkeila (Hameenlinna, 

 Finland), Prof. G. C. Varley (Hope Department, Oxford), Dr. G. Wallace (Carnegie 

 Museum, Pittsburgh), Mr. A. R. Waterston (Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh), 

 Mr. G. F. Willmot and Mr. C. Simms (Yorkshire Museum, York). Much help and 

 encouragement was also given to me by the late Dr. W. D. Hincks of Manchester. 

 I also offer my special thanks to Mrs. A. Smith (Hope Department, Oxford) who 

 so carefully typed the whole of the manuscript, and gave much help with the biblio- 

 graphy. Mr. and Mrs. K. G. V. Smith have given invaluable help with reading the 

 proofs. Mr. D. E. Kimmins (B.M.(N.H.)) devoted immense care to the editing of 

 my paper. 



TAXONOMIC AIMS 



These have been to revise the synonymy by a study of type-specimens, to attempt 

 a more satisfactory delimitation of genera and higher categories, to give some 

 biological information, and to provide a representative though not exhaustive 

 bibliography. 



Regarding delimitation of genera, the writer has been rather conservative in 

 accepting as valid all those which could be maintained on the basis of reasonably 

 clear-cut characters (not necessarily the same in both sexes) . Possibly a number of 

 genera, now regarded as distinct, will eventually be united ; but it is wise not to 

 attempt this until the European fauna has been more adequately surveyed. 



The present revision is exploratory rather than exhaustive, and can doubtless be 

 improved upon when the keys have been tested and some little-known genera better 

 worked. The taxonomy of Chalcidoidea at family level is still in a state of flux. 

 Keys to the families have been published by Richards (1956), Ferriere & Kerrich 

 (1958), and Peck et al. (1964). These, particularly that of Peck et al., are extremely 

 useful and a great improvement on earlier ones ; but the characters used to separate 

 some of the families are not definite enough, whilst one character used (the relative 

 size of the hind coxae in Torymidae) is misleading. Thus Ashmead (1904 : 229) 

 included Torymidae in a section having " hind coxae very large and long, usually 

 five or six times larger than the anterior coxae"; Richards (1956:67) put 

 Torymidae (excluding Megastigminae) in a section having "hind coxae large, 5-6 

 times longer than the front one ". I do not know of any European Tory mid having 

 the hind coxae more than about two and a half times as long as the front coxae. 

 The ratio of the average length of the hind coxa to that of the front coxa is indeed 

 somewhat greater in Torymidae than in Pteromalidae, but some of the latter ap- 

 proach the condition seen in Torymids with shortest coxae, hence the character is 



