315 



same extent as do the above males ; the last antennal joint varies all 

 the way from once and a half to twice as long as the preceding joiat. 



Besides the above, I also bred 5S> specimens of Lysiphlebus from a 

 single colony of aphids found on a tame rose bush. Separating these 

 as the preceding, gives the following results : 



Males : 



14 antennal joints, 10 specimens. 



15 antennal joints, 19 specimens. 



14 joints in one antenna and 1.5 in the other, 2 specimens. 

 Females : 



12 antennal joints, 2 specimens. 



13 antennal joints, 25 specimens. 



These specimens varied in the same manner and nearly to the same 

 extent as did those bred from the aphids on Baccharis, and T am un- 

 able to separate them specifically from the latter. 



In my collection are 5 specimensjfrom the same lot of Lysiphlebus as Mr. 

 Ashmead described his L. ahutilaphidis from ; one of the males and one 

 of the females have the antenna? as in the described specimens, but in 

 another male the antennae are 15-jointed, while in two of the females 

 they are only 12-jointed. 



From the above it seems very evident that the number of joints in the 

 autennie varies in the different specimens belonging to the same species 

 of Lysiphlebus. If a form with a given number of antennal joints would 

 only confine its attacks to a single species of aphis there might then be 

 some room for believing that this form represented a species distinct 

 from those having a greater or less number of antennal joints ; but when 

 the same form is bred from different kinds of aphids, and the different 

 forms are bred from the same colony of aphids, not in a single instance, 

 but in nearly every instance, there is very little room to doubt that the 

 number of antennal joints varies in the diff'erent individuals belonging 

 to the same species of Lysiphlebus. 



From a careful study of a large series of specimens of Lysiphlebus 

 from this locality I am firmly convinced that the forms described by 

 Mr. Ashmead under the name of Lysiphlebus piciventris, L. eragrosta- 

 pliidis, L. coquilletti, L. abutilaphidis, and L. haccliaraiyliidis^ all refer 

 to one and the same species. To this category also belongs the ApM- 

 daria hasilaris of Provancher, specimens from the same lot as Mr. Ash- 

 mead described his L. eragrostaphidis having been referred to the above 

 species by L'Abbe Provancher himself. In the paper above referred 

 to Mr. Ashmead considers A. hasilaris as being identical with his own 

 previously described Aphidius citraphis, so that the name and syn- 

 onymy of this species, so far as at present determined, will stand about 



as follows : 



Lysiphlebus citraphis (Ashm.). 



Aphidius citraphis Ashm. 

 Aphidaria hasilaris Prov. 

 Lysiphlehus piciventris Ashm. 

 L. eragrostaphidis Ashm. 



L. coquiUetti Ashm. 

 L. abutilaphidis Ashm. 

 L. haccharaphidis Ashm. 



