158 
Bulletin Wisconsin Natural History Society [Vol. 11, No. 4 
Rightly, later this species was removed to become the type of the 
new genus Centrobia Foerster (1856); the species differed from Tri- 
chogramma in lacking a ring-joint in the structure of the antennae, 
in having a 3-jointed club and a straight marginal vein. (Cf. 
How'ard, 1909.) 
Close upon Foerster ’s description of Poropoea, came its rede- 
scription as new by Ratzeburg (1852) under the name of Ophio- 
neurus, based on the male of 0. simplex new species and the female 
of 0. signata new species, both reared from attelabid eggs. In the 
same place, later, in some Nachtrage (id., p. 248) the female of 
simplex is also briefly described. Ophioneurus simplex is later 
pronounced synonymous with the type of Poropoea Foerster by 
Foerster (1856) who is confirmed in his opinion by Reinhard 
(1858, p. 23). The descriptions of the two agree in all essentials 
as do also the host relations. Foerster (1856) also placed Ophio- 
neurus signatus in Poropoea, but as Reinhard (1858) points out 
later, this species is different from Poropoea and at first he placed 
it with Chaetostricha Haliday and then with Lathromeris Foerster. 
But I am more inclined to accept the original description as it 
stands and hence consider Ophioneurus valid with the species 
signatus as its type. The exserted ovipositor and its host relations 
are characteristics which may serve to identify it. 
Four or five years later a great advance in our knowledge of the 
family w&s made through Arnold Foerster’s (1856) Hymenoptero- 
logische Studien. The more or less scattered group of genera is 
raised to the rank of a family, separated from all other families of 
the complex Chalcidiae (homologous with the present superfamily 
Chalcidoidea ) by the 3-jointed tarsi (Foerster, 1856, pp. 20, 26-27). 
The treatment and arrangement of the family is of such high order 
and of such fundamental importance in the systematic study of 
this group that Foerster’s opening paragraph and his Uebersicht 
of the genera are quoted here in full. It is to be regretted that here 
and also earlier (ib., 1851) Foerster was misled in regard to the 
genus Trichogramma Westwood, relying too much on Walker (1842). 
With the exception of this pardonable error and one or two others 
of omission (see Mayr, 1904), the • discussion of the family is of 
the highest excellence. It opens as follows and runs for about 
three and one-half pages, the Uebersicht being followed by concise 
discussions of the genera taken separately: 
