SERPHOlD AND CHALClDOID PARASITES OF THE HESSIAN FLY 81 



valid name for the species with subapterus Riley as the synonym. 

 The generic name Ne micro melius Girault was accepted by Myers. 

 Hill and Smith in 1928 mentioned the species in a paper in which the 

 status of hessian-fly parasites in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Vir- 

 ginia was discussed. 12 In 1929 Meyer again listed Micromehas 

 subapterus as a parasite of the fly in Russia. 



Blunck in 1931 placed both Pteromalus fulvipes Forbes and 

 Merisus (Homoporus) subapterus Riley in synonymy with Mera- 

 porus graminicola Walker. 



From this summary of the literature it will be seen that this 

 species has been placed at various times under no less than eight 

 different genera. It is therefore with a sense of regret that the 

 writer is compelled to place it under still a different generic name. 

 It obviously has no relation to Ceraphron or Eurytoma, belonging 

 in an entirely different family. It is at once separated from 

 Pteromalus, Merisus, Micromelus (=Baeotomus), and Homoporus 

 by the fact that the occiput is distinctly margined. It also differs 

 from Pteromalus in the shape of the head, in venation, and in 

 abdominal characters, while from the other three named genera it 

 differs by obvious antennal and propodeal characters as well as in 

 habitus. The margined occiput, venation, neck on the propodeum, 

 shortly petioled and conic-ovate abdomen, as well as all other char- 

 acters, place it in Eupteromalus Kurdjumov, a genus many species 

 of which have similar habits of parasitizing Diptera. Since 

 Eupteromalus is an older name than Nemicromelus, the latter was 

 unnecessary. 



The specific names fulvipes Forbes and suhapterus Riley undoubt- 

 edly refer to the same species. Also there can be no question but 

 that Myers was correct in stating that fulvipes was published first 

 and hence is the name to use. 



The conclusion by Biro, published by Blunck, that this species is 

 identical with Meraporus graminicola Walker is certainly erroneous. 

 The writer has studied the type of graminicola in the British 

 Museum and found it to have an immargined occiput, a 5- jointed 

 funicle, and a propodeum which is without a distinct neck, characters 

 which definitely mark it as generically, as well as specifically, 

 different from fulvipes. 



HOSTS AND LIFE HISTORY 



So far as known, this parasite normally attacks only Phytophaga 

 destructor, although in one instance, according to Myers' unpub- 

 lished manuscript, a single specimen of it was reared from a pu- 

 parium which contained also an adult of Platygaster, and observa- 

 tions published by Packard in 1916 indicate its ability occasionally 

 to develop as a secondary parasite. 



Normally, however, it is a primary, solitary, external parasite 

 of the hessian fly. According to Packard, the egg is deposited in 

 the flaxseed and the resulting larva feeds externally upon the host 

 larva or pupa until full grown, when it pupates within the fly pupa- 



12 The reference to Eupteromalus micropterus by Hill and Smith is a misidentification 

 for which the present writer is responsible. The specimens referred to under that name 

 are now believed to be winged specimens of E. fulvipes having dark or metallic coxae. 



6685°— 33— 6 



