1926 ] 
A Species of Urocerus from Baltic Amber 
169 
as the first; submedian cell very little longer than the median; 
externomedian vein bent downward near apex, but entirely with- 
out any stump of a vein; second recurrent nervure entering the 
third cubital cell before its basal third; transverse lanceolate 
vein obscured at its base, but apparently arising just before the 
lower end of the transverse median vein. The apex of the ab- 
domen has been removed in polishing the amber and cannot 
be described. 
Type in the collection of the Geologisches Institut of the 
University of Konigsberg 
This species differs from the European U. gigas and the 
North American U. albicornis , calif ornicus and cressoni by the 
insertion of the first transverse cubitus on the upper side of the 
discoidal cell instead of on the basal vein. The one other North 
American species, U. taxodii Ashm. is not in my collection, but 
Bradley has published a good figure (Pomona Journ. Entom., 
vol. 5, p. 31) which shows the amber species to resemble taxodii 
in this respect. The second section of the radius is proportion- 
ately much longer than in any of the above-mentioned living 
species except U. cressoni where it is as long as the third. 
I have named this species in honor of Professor Klebs who 
first reported the occurrence of Siricidae in amber. Klebs (TagbL 
NaturfOrschervers., vol. 62, p. 269) in 1889 referred Baltic amber 
specimens to Sirex, a closely similar genus. Quite probably the 
present species may be the same form. 
Sirex has been reported from the miocene beds of Radoboj. 
This was described by Heer as “Ufocerites”, but later referred to 
Paururus by Konow (Wiener Entom. Zeit., vol. 17, p. 87, 1898). 
The name Paururus is now replaced by Sirex. To judge from 
Heer’s figure the posterior tibiae and their metatarsi are flattened 
much as in the peculiar Cuban genus Teredon and I cannot be 
satisfied that Konow’s reference is correct although of course the 
males of other genera show a tendency in this direction and 
Heer’s specimen is probably a male; unfortunately the antennae 
of “Urocerites” were not preserved, so that there is no indication 
whether they were of the peculiar type of those of Teredon. 
Heer has restored them in one figure, but entirely on the basis 
of those of Sirex and Urocerus. 
