328 M. W. R. de V. GRAHAM 



MEROMALUS Walker 



Meromalus Walker, 1834 : 168, 178. Type-species : M.flavicornis Walker, by monotypy. 



The identity of this genus cannot be definitely settled at present because the 

 original material of its type-species has not been located in BM(NH). My own 

 view is that Meromalus is probably the same as Gastrancistrus but the question must 

 be left open for the time being (see further remarks below under flavicornis). 



Meromalus flavicornis Walker 



Meromalus flavicornis Walker, 1834 : 178,^. 

 ? Ormocerus Drymo Walker, 1839 : 205, <J. 



Type material. Meromalus flavicornis was originally captured in " June ; on 

 grass in fields ; near London " (Walker, 1834 : 1 7^>)- I n spite of several years' 

 search I have not located the original material in Walker's collection ; but perhaps it 

 may yet turn up. 



Ormocerus drymo was placed in synonymy with Meromalus flavicornis by Walker 

 himself (1848 : 106). I cannot find any material of drymo in Walker's collection ; 

 but in Haliday's collection there are remnants (antennae, parts of the wings) of a 

 specimen which is labelled " Drymo " in Walker's handwriting. This specimen 

 belongs, I believe, to the safes-group of Gastrancistrus. If Walker was correct in 

 his synonymy, then this is the nearest indication we have at present to the probably 

 identity of Meromalus. It is interesting to note that Thomson, in a Swedish foot- 

 note to his account of Tridymus (= Gastrancistrus) salicis (Nees), remarked (1876 a, 

 197) that Meromalus probably represented the male of salicis, although he could not 

 have seen the type of Meromalus flavicornis. 



Peck et al. (1964 : 33) place salicis (Nees) in the genus Meromalus, which they 

 remark is probably synonymous with Gastrancistrus. They state, however, that the 

 antennae of the male of Meromalus have 13 segments ; whereas the antennae of 

 male salicis have 12 segments. 



Erdos (1946 : 154) claimed to recognize Meromalus flavicornis, with which he 

 compared his new species M. pusztensis. The latter is a very distinct species which 

 I include in the genus Gastrancistrus (see above) but the description of flavicornis 

 does not suggest to me that it might be near to pusztensis. 



PIRENINI 



Haliday (1844 : 295) established a tribe Pireniani [sic] in which he placed Calypso 

 [= Stenophrus], Macroglenes and Pirene. Forster (1856 : 40) regarded it as a family 

 (Pyrenoidae) . Thomson (1876 : 12, 187) treated it as a " tribe " Pirenina (most of 

 his " tribes " are the equivalent of families according to modern concepts). Ashmead 

 (1904 : 271) made it a subfamily of Miscogasteridae. Ferriere (1934 : 85) redefined 

 Pireninae as a subfamily of Pteromalidae, giving a key to the genera which he 

 regarded as being true Pirenines, and mentioning certain others to be excluded from 



