174 
Bulletin Wisconsin Natural History Society [Vol. 11, No. 4 
as a reference work to the various component of the group proved 
of great aid. He omits Prestwichia Lubbock placing it with the 
Mymaridae and includes the genus Aprostocetus Westwood which 
is really eulophid. In the catalogue nine genera (including Prest- 
wichia) are listed with 27 species. Oophthora of course was not 
included. The various minor errors in this important work will 
receive attention in more appropriate places. 
Between the time of de Dalla Torre’s catalogue and Aurivillius’ 
synopsis of the family and that of the appearance of Ashmead’s 
table of its genera several additions to the known genera and 
species of the family were made and are mentioned in their order 
before taking up a consideration of the last and one of the most 
important studies of the family. In 1900 Ashmead described 
Brachista pallida and Centrohia odonatae as new species reared 
from the eggs of Odonata; the former I have proved to be a synonym 
of ( Trichogramma ) Abbella acuminata (Ashmead). Kryger (1903- 
1905 a and b) recorded the rearing of various genera from host eggs 
without mentioning the species of the genera mentioned. In 
1904 Ashmead described as new Trichogramma japonicum and 
Pentarthron brasiliense and Mayr redescribed Eulophus exiguus 
Nees as Asynada exigu (Nees), reestablishing the genus Asynada, 
formerly without a type species, and Br achy stir a pungens new 
species, which becomes the type of Brachista , thus reestablishing 
that genus. The types of the two former species I have seen. 
Ashmead as a culmination to his years of strenuous labor, in 
his monumental work on the classification of the chalcid flies 
(Ashmead, 1904) gives a full synopsis of the family Trichogram- 
matidae which he divides into two subfamilies — Ologositinae 
Ashmead and Trichogramminac Ashmead, corresponding to the 
two original sections or divisions made by Haliday (Walker, 1851). 
After reviewing the literature of the family I consider this synopsis 
of the genera the best one so far produced though there are many 
obvious errors which have had to be eliminated. Ashmead recog- 
nized nearly all of the genera so far described, with the exception 
of Calleptiles Haliday, and in the main rightly so. I have there- 
fore contented myself in revising this table omitting such genera 
as Aprobosca Westwood and correcting the genera wrongly diag- 
nosed. Ashmead, similarly with others, is misled in regard to 
Trichogramma, which as recognized by him is none other than 
