14. MISC. PUBLICATION 241, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
Aside from the unusual antennae, this genus is very similar to 
Microctonus Wesmael. The wing venation is the same and the 
structure of the thorax and abdomen is similar also. The differences 
in the antennae, however, will readily distinguish the two. In ad- 
dition to the conspicuous elongation of the scape, the antenna is genic- 
ulate, at least in the female, and may be otherwise modified. The 
ovipositor, while exserted, is shorter than in Microctonus. 
Eutanycerus halidayanus, except for striking differences in details 
of the antennal structure and its more prominently exserted oviposi- 
tor, agrees with Streblocera fulviceps in all important respects. The 
two are undoubtedly congeneric. Thomson synonymized F. hali- 
dayanus with S. macroscapus (Ruthe), and, although Marshall (//, 
p. 299) expressed doubt concerning this synonymy, the present writer 
believes it to be correct. He has seen the types of both species and 
has found no basis for distinguishing them. 
Lecythodella, which is based on a single male specimen from Peru, 
is known to the writer only from the original description, but there 
seems to be no reasonable doubt that it belongs here. The supposed 
differences between Lecythodella and Hutanycerus mentioned by 
Enderlein, namely, the shorter vestiture of scape, the interstitial 
nervulus, and the longer second abdominal tergite, in Lecythodella, 
are at most of specific importance. 
No North American representatives of Streblocera are known. 
The Genus MICROCTONUS Wesmael 
Perilitus Haliday (Sectio B), Ent. Mag. 3: 35, 1835; Reinhard (Sectio 1), Berlin 
Ent. Ztschr. 6: 323, 1862; Marshall (in part), Ent. Soc. London Trans. 1887: 
71; Thomson (Sectio 2), Opuscula Entomologica, fase. 16, p. 1741, 1892; 
Ashmead, U. S. Natl. Mus. Proc. 23: 116, 1900; Szepligeti, Hymenoptera, 
Fam. Braconidae, 77 Wytsman, Genera Insectorum, fase. 22, p. 170, 1904; 
_ Lyle, Entomologist 60: 60, 1927. 
Microctonus Wesmael (in part), Monographie des Braconides Belgique, p. 54, 
1835; Foerster, Verhandl. Naturh. Ver. Preuss. Rheinlande 19 (N. F. 9): 
251, 1862. (Genotype, Perilitus aethiops Nees.) 
Gamosecus Provancher, Nat. Canad. 12: 167, 1880. (Genotype, Gamosecus melli- 
nus Provancher.) 
As defined by Wesmael, Microctonus included all the present 
Euphorinae with two cubital cells. This author had not recognized 
Euphorus Nees, which had already been described but erroneously 
placed in the Serphoidea by Nees, or Séreblocera Westwood, also 
described earlier; but his definition of Microctonus covers these genera 
as well. In 1840 Westwood (16, v. 2, Gen. Syn., p. 61) designated 
Perilitus idalius Haliday type of Microctonus, but this species was 
not originally included in that genus and therefore was not available 
as type. In 1862 Reinhard, following Westwood, restricted Micrecto- 
nus to species combining an elongate radial cell, confluent first cubital 
and first discoidal cells, lack of distinct notauli, and exserted oviposi- 
tor, while he used Perilitus for species with a short radial cell, trilobed 
mesoscutum, and exserted ovipositor. The latter group he then 
divided into two sections, section 1 containing species having the first 
cubital and first discoidal cells confluent, and section 2, species with 
these cells separated. Earlier in the same year, however, Foerster 
had proposed Syniretus for Microctonus in the sense of Westwood and 
Reinhard, naming Microctonus vernalis Wesmael as type, and had 
applied the name Microctonus Wesmael to those forms placed by 
Reinhard in Perilitus, section 1. As type of Microctonus Foerster 
