1922 ] Hymenopterous Genus Harpagocryptus and its Allies. 101 
ON THE HYMENOPTEROUS GENUS HARPAGOCRYP- 
TUS AND ITS ALLIES. 1 
By Charles T. Brues. 
In the October issue of the Proceedings of the Hawaiian 
Entomological Society for 1908 Bridwell (’08) described a 
peculiar genus of Hymenoptera from Queensland, which he 
named Harpagocryptus and placed in the Family Diyiniclse. 
Harpagocryptus differs from all other genera of Dryinidae except 
Dryinopsis Brues (TO) 2 in having the antennae of the female 
12-jointed, but Bridwell was influenced in placing the genus in 
this family by the habits of the larva which forms a sac on the 
side of the abdomen of crickets after the fashion of certain well 
known Dryinids. 
About a year later (’10) the present writer described the 
genus Algoa, based on an anomalous insect from Cape Colony 
which he was unhble to place with certainty in any family. At 
the time I did not compare it with Bridwell’s description of 
Harpagocryptus, as I did not think the South African insect 
could be a member of the Dryinidae. The two are, however, 
closely related, and I regarded them as synomous until recently, 
when Air. Nathan Banks of the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology, gave me a specimen of a subapterous Hymcnopteron 
from Long Island, New York, belonging to the same group. 
After a careful comparison of the two species before me with 
Bridwell’s description, I have come to the conclusion that three 
closely related genera are concerned. I find also that I have a 
male of Algoa heterodoxa which is entirely wingless and distin- 
guishable from the female only by the presence of two spines at 
the apex of the abdomen, and of thirteen antennal joints, while 
the femora are much more slender than those of the female. 
■‘Contribution from the Entomological Laboratory of the Bussey Institution, Harvard 
University, No. 205. 
2 This genus is similar in many respects to Methoca and apparently still more like Andreus 
Ashm. (03b), although I know the latter only from the description. Unfortunately the male is 
unknown and may or may not prove to be of the Thynnid type. Inasmuch as the systematic 
position of Methoca itself must still be considered as somewhat doubtful, I am unable to form a 
satisfactory opinion concerning the affinities of Dryinopsis. 
