680 M. W. R. de V. GRAHAM 



Holotype $. England : Berkshire, Bagley Wood, on foliage of Larix decidua 

 Mill., 3JX.1954 (Graham), in Hope Department, University Museum, Oxford. 



Paratypes. Same data as holotypes, 1 $, 4.vi.ig54, 1 $, 3.VL1962 (Graham), 

 in Graham collection. 



This very distinct species may be known from the other described species by the 

 combination of the extensively pilose basal cell of the fore wing, short propodeum 

 which has rather weak plicae, and lanceolate gaster having the ovipositor sheaths 

 distinctly exserted. 



In the pilosity and venation of the fore wing it much resembles A nogmus strobilorum 

 Thomson ; in the sculpture of the dorsum of the thorax, the shape of the thorax, 

 and in the propodeum, it somewhat resembles Trychnosoma punctipleura (Thomson). 



Biology. Unknown. 



Mesopolobus spermotrophus Hussey 



Amblymerus apicalis Hussey, 1955 : 147-150, 5* $ [nee Thomson, 1878]. 

 Mesopolobus sp., v. Rosen, i960 : 40-41, <$ $>. 

 Mesopolobus spermotrophus Hussey, i960 : 237, (J ?■ 



Type material. Holotype $, and paratypes, <$ $, Scotland : Ross-shire, Rose- 

 haugh, i.1952, from seeds of Pseudotsuga douglasii Carriere infested with 

 Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl, parasitizing the latter in BM(NH). 



Scotland. 



Biology. A detailed account was given by Hussey (1955). 



Mesopolobus pinus Hussey 



Mesopolobus pinus Hussey, i960 : 237-238, <J $. 



Type material. Holotype $ and paratypes, <$ $, Scotland : Aberdeenshire, 

 Blackhall, 1953, from seeds of Abies procera Rehd. infested with Megastigmus pinus 

 Parfitt, stated to be in BM(NH), but I cannot locate them. 



I am not certain of the identity of this species, which appears to be a valid one. 

 I have seen a $ which fits the description and may be pinus ; it is very like 

 spermotrophus Hussey but has the gaster about as long as head plus thorax. 



Scotland. 



Biology. See above. 



Mesopolobus maculipennis (Mercet) 



Eutelus (Amblymerus) maculipennis Mercet, 1923 : 105, $. Mercet, 1924 : 429-430, $. 

 Mesopolobus maculipennis (Mercet) v. Rosen, 1958 : 232, <£• 

 Mesopolobus maculipennis (Mercet); v. Rosen, 1960a : 30-31,^ $. 



I have not seen the type-material of this species. Von Rosen (1960a) gave a 

 redescription of both sexes from material (not the types) determined by Mercet 



