REVISION OF LEUCOSPIDAE 29 



generic name ever since, especially after Schrank used it again for his species as 

 'Coelogaster passavianus' (1782 : 296). The latter statement was taken as a 

 subsequent reference and C. passavianus Schrank, 1782, regarded as the type- 

 species of Coelogaster Schrank, 1780, by Gahan & Fagan (1923 : 38), who overlooked 

 that the first species mentioned (by Schrank, 1781 : 307) as belonging to the genus 

 (if we take it as such), was L. dorsigera Fabricius. In any case this is of minor interest 

 only, because already Schrank himself (1782 : 296), and rightly so, put his Coelogaster 

 passaviensis in synonymy with L. dorsigera. 



The two grammatical emendations of the name Leucospis by Dumeril and 

 Burmeister were used by some subsequent authors but they are invalid under the 

 Code. 



Metallopsis was erected as a subgenus and virtually never raised to generic rank. 

 It is mentioned under the American cayennensis-gvoup (p. 92) where its type-species 

 belongs. 



Similarly Exochlaenus (misspelt Exoclaenus by Ashmead (1904a : 247) and 

 by some subsequent authors) and the remaining three names of Girault were 

 proposed for species showing some unusual characters but without real knowledge 

 of the related and intermediate species. In Girault's case the names were proposed 

 for the few Australian species known to him. Their characters are discussed 

 together with the subdivision of the genus (p. 31) and under the species-groups in 

 question, e.g. Exoclaenoides with theaustralis-group (p. 190) , Epexoclaenoides (misspelt 

 Epexochlaenoides by Mani (1936; 1937)) with the pediculata-group, Exochlaenus with 

 the hopei-group. Exochlaenus, Parexoclaeuiis and Exoclaenoides were put in synonymy 

 with Leucospis by Weld (1922 : 3, 5), although still listed as valid by Gahan & Fagan 

 (1923). Only Epexoclaenoides has been regarded as valid after Weld's paper 

 (1922 : 4, 35). Its type-species, E. bicinctus shows an extreme form of the 

 denticulation of the hind femur, with the large basal tooth followed by a comb of 

 numerous minute and regular teeth. This feature (Text-figs 225, 233) is developed 

 in several species but several other, undoubtedly very close species show various 

 intergrades towards the common form of teeth, seen for example in the common 

 European L. dorsigera Fabricius, the type-species of the genus. 



Colours non-metallic or metallic. Pilosity on face mostly dense, including eyes. Clypeus 

 more or less trapezoidal or subtriangular, often transverse, its lower margin always emarginate 

 and usually (always in non-American species) with median tooth. Genae of varying length, 

 subocular suture often slightly indicated. Mandibles moderately curved, with distinct lower 

 tooth separated from upper edge; their apex bare. Maxillary palpi 4-segmented, labial ones 

 3-segmented, well developed. Pronotum with or without cross-carinae, with or without 

 cross-depression. Scutellum without cross-carina. Dorsellum rounded dorsally or bitubercu- 

 late, posteriorly often carinate, sometimes bidcntate. Propodeum of varying length, medially 

 very short in females with long ovipositor; median carina often distinct, sometimes strongly 

 raised (more often in males) ; postero-lateral corners not sharp. Hind coxa large, of varying 

 shape, sometimes partly impunctate, in some groups with dorsal tooth, or carinate meso- 

 dorsally, then often forming a broad thin dorsal lobe. Hind femur large but of varying shape, 

 ventral edge with teeth varying in form from large slender teeth to a comb of regular minute 

 teeth, basal tooth usually before middle. Hind tibia with outer spur more or less reduced, 

 shorter than inner spur, sometimes rudimentary if tibia produced into a spine. Fore wing 

 with terminal processus of stigmal vein often distinct. Gaster different in the two sexes. 



