28 MISC. PUBLICATION 241, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
one specimen ‘‘collected in upper air over Mexico” by B. R. Coad, 
in 1928, in the course of airplane flights to ascertain certain facts 
concerning the distribution of the pink bollworm. The type was 
recorded as a parasite of Meromyza americana Fitch, while the New 
York specimens were reared from Lygus pratensis (L.). On the basis 
of the information available concerning host associations of related 
forms, the Meromyza record is probably incorrect. 
The Genus EUPHORUS Nees 
Leiophron Haliday, in part (not Letophron Nees), Ent. Mag. 1: 263, 1833; Curtis, 
Brit. Ent., v. 10, no. 476, 1833. 
Euphorus Nees, Hymenopterorum Ichneumonibus Affinium Monographae .. ., 
v. 2, p. 360, 1834; Westwood, An Introduction to the Modern Classification 
of Insects, v. 2, Gen. Syn., p. 62; 1840; Foerster, Verhandl. Naturh. Ver. 
Preuss. Rheinlande 9 (N. F. 9): 251, 1862; Reinhard, Berlin. Ent. Ztschr. 6: 
327, 1862; Marshall, Ent. Soc. London Trans. 1887, p. 53; Thomson, Opuscula 
Entomologica, fase. 16, p. 1745, 1892; Ashmead, U. 8. Natl. Mus. Proc. 23: 
116, 1900; Szepligeti, Hymenoptera, Fam. Braconidae, in Wytsman, Genera 
Insectorum, fase. 22, p. 175, 1904. (Genotype, Huphorus pallidicornis 
Nees.) 
Peristenus Foerster, Verhandl. Naturh. Ver. Preuss. Rheinlande 19 (N. F. 9): 
251, 1862; Ashmead, U. S. Natl. Mus. Proc. 23: 116, 1900. (Genotype, 
Microctonus barbiger Wesmael.) 
Euphorus was described by Nees in the Serphoidea, which he called 
the ‘“‘Proctotrupii.”’ A year earlier Haliday and Curtis had described 
species belonging to this group but had incorrectly assigned them to 
Leiophron Nees. Westwood, in 1840, recognized Huphorus as a 
braconid and as being identical with Leiophron of Haliday and 
Curtis. In his classification of the Braconidae, published in 1862, 
Foerster used Huphorus as the basis of his family EKuphoridae. At 
the same time he proposed Peristenus for species which he distin- 
guished from Huphorus by the presence of distinct notauli; but sub- 
sequent authors, excepting Ashmead, have considered Peristenus 
a synonym of Huphorus. This seems the proper treatment, for cer- 
tainly the two groups cannot be distinguished on the basis of the notauli 
alone, and there appears to be no satisfactory line of demarcation. 
Euphorus includes rather diverse forms, which, however, do not array 
themselves in groups sufficiently well marked to be considered distinct 
genera or even subgenera. The genus may be recognized by the 
following combination of characters: 
Head usually thickened, frequently subquadrate, sometimes completely 
margined behind, sometimes margined only on the sides; temples and cheeks 
broad, convex; antennae rarely much longer than head and thorax combined; 
notauli ranging from entirely absent to strongly completely impressed; meso- 
scutum without a median rugulose area posteriorly; propodeum narrowing api- 
cally, convex, neither abruptly declivous nor conspicuously excavated medially 
behind; stigma large, very broad; radial cell never longer than stigma, usually 
much shorter; first abscissa of radius very short or lacking, the second curved; 
two cubital cells; medius indistinct or obliterated; first cubital and first discoidal 
cells, separated, first abscissa of cubitus always present; remainder of cubitus, 
the intercubitus, and the recurrent vein varying from distinct and complete to 
entirely or almost entirely obliterated; nervellus usually distinct, rarely lacking; 
abdomen somewhat pyriform; first tergite more or less sculptured, usually broad- 
ening somewhat toward apex, but sometimes not broader at apex than at base: 
ovipositor at most subexserted, usually decurved. 
Few definite host records are available for species of this genus. 
One oriental and one African species, however, are recorded as 
parasites of nymphs or adults of Hemiptera belonging to the family 
