PTEROMALIDAE OF N.W. EUROPE 733 



Pteromalus gentilis Walker, 1836 : 493, <j>. 



Pteromalus Axos Walker, 1848 : 126, 201, $. 



Trichomalus tenellus (Walker) Graham, 19566 : 249. 



Trichomaius tenellus (Walker) ; Delucchi & Graham, 1956 : 549, 562, $. 



Type material. For synonymy and designation of lectotypes for the above 

 Walker species, see Graham (1956ft : 249). 



Britain ; not common. 



Biology. Unknown. Imagines July-August ; females also in winter, hibernating 

 amongst the foliage of coniferous trees and of Buxus, and in similar situations. 



Trichomalus fulvipes (Walker) 



Pteromalus fulvipes Walker, 1836 : 490, $. 



? Pteromalus Amphimedon Walker, 1839 : 235, $. 



Pteromalus operosus Forster, 1841 : 13, $, syn. n. 



Trichomalus fulvipes (Walker) Graham, 19566 : 250. 



Trichomalus operosus (Forster) Delucchi & Graham, 1956 : 550, 565, $. 



Type material. Pteromalus fulvipes Walker. Lectotype female designated by 

 Graham (19566 : 250). 



Pteromalus amphimedon Walker. Syntypes, 3 <$ ; LECTOTYPE, the first 

 specimen, bearing a Waterhouse label. 



Pteromalus operosus Forster. Syntypes, 3 $. LECTOTYPE labelled " Pt. 

 operosus Forster Type " and, in Forster's handwriting, " operosus m.". 



Although the males which I believe may belong to fulvipes are very different 

 from those of helvipes (Walker), it is difficult to assign some females with certainty 

 to one or the other species. The distinctions given in my key to species (females) 

 hold good for most specimens, but a few cause doubt. Females which I can refer 

 definitely to fulvipes have the following characters (compare with the corresponding 

 ones in helvipes) : 



Legs, not counting the coxae, bright testaceous, the femora sometimes reddish. 

 POL 1-45-1-5 OOL. Marginal vein 1-4-1-55 times as long as the stigmal vein. 

 Body more slender than in female helvipes, gaster relatively longer (see key to 

 species). These differences are mainly average ones, and are perhaps not very 

 helpful ; but I have no doubt that fulvipes represents a distinct species. Perhaps 

 further investigation will reveal some better characters for distinguishing its female 

 from that of helvipes. 



Delucchi and Graham, when dealing with operosus (Forster) (= fulvipes Walker) 

 and helvipes (Walker), placed them (1956 : 550, 551) in different sections of their 

 key, because the former species was considered to have the pilosity of the fore wing 

 shorter and denser than the latter. After recomparing the females of fulvipes and 

 helvipes, however, I find this distinction to be very slight and hard to appreciate. 



Britain, Germany, Switzerland. 



Biology. Unknown. Imagines (in Britain) captured in August. 



