I have, for the definition of known species inhabiting Europe, referred
to :— -
Mayr, “ Die Europäischen Formiciden,” Wien, 1861 ; and
Forel, “ Les Fourmis de la Suisse,” Zurich, 1874.
In the following description I have quoted only the principal synonyms
; others are to be found inMayr’s “ Formicidarum Index synony-
micus,” in the Verh. d. k.k. zool. bot. Ges. in Wien, 1863, pp. 385-460.
1. Camponotus, Mayr.
1 . C a m p o n o t u s s y l v a t i c u s , O l i v .
2. ,, Fedchenkoi, n.s.
3 . , , m a r g i n a t u s , L t r .
4. , , i n t e r j e c t u s , n.s.
2. Plagiolepis, Mayr.
I . P l a g i o l e p i s p y g m a e a , L t r .
3. Lasius, F.
1 . L a s i p s n i g e r , L .
2. , , a l i e n u s , F o e r s t .
4. Formica, L.
1 . F o r m i c a p r a t e n s i s , D e G e e r .
2. , , t r u n c i c o l a , N y l .
3 . , , r u f i b a r b i s , F .
4 . „ c i n e r e a , M a y r .
5 . , , f u s c a , L .
6 . „ a b e r r a n s , n.s.
5. Cataglyphis, Foerst.
1 . C a t a g l y p h i s v i a t i c a , F .
2. „ c u r s o r , F o n s c o l .
3 . , , a l b i c a n s , R o g .
4 . „ p a l l i d a , n.s.
6. Acantholepis, Mayr.
I . A c a n t h o l e p i s F r a u e n f e l d i , M a y r .
T. Tapinoma, Foerst.
I . T a p i n o m a n i g e r r i m u m , N y l .
2.. , , e r r a t i c u m , L t r .
8. Bothriomyrmex, Emery.
I . B o t h r i o m y r m e x m e r i d i o n a l e , R o g . I
[ I n r e t u r n i n g p r o o f o f t h e a b o v e D r . M a y r
o f T u r k i s t a n h a s b e e n t r a n s l a t e d i n t o
voor Entomologie, x x i i i . deel, p . 1 7 - 4 ° I 1
9. I s c h n o m y r m e x , M a y r .
I s c h n o m y r m e x r h a p h i d i i c e p s , n.s.
10. A p h a e n o g a s t e r , M a y r .
A p h a e n o g a s t e r b a r b a r a , L .
, , ; s t r u c t o r , L t r .
11. M y r m i c a , X t r .
M y r m i c a l a e v i n o d i s , N y l .
„ r u g i n o d i s , , ,
, , r u g u l o s a , , ,
, , s c a b r i n o d i s , , ,
, , l o b i c o r n i s , „ ,
12. L e p t o t h o r a x , M a y r .
13. T e t r a m o r i u m , M a y r .
, T e t r a m o r i u m c a e s p i t u m , L .
14. M o n o m o r i u m , M a y r .
. M o n o m o r i u m b a r b a t u l u m , n.sì<\.';
15. C a r d i o c o n d y l a , E m e r y .
. C a r d i o c o n d y l a e l e g a n s , E m e r y .
16. P h e i d o l e , W e s t w .
. P h e i d o l e p u s i l l a , H e e r .
17. S o l e n o p s i s , W e s t w .
, S o l e n o p s i s f u g a x , L t r .
18. C r e m a s i o g a s t e r , L u n e .
. C r e m a s t o g a s t e r s o r d i d u l a , N y l .
, , s u b d e n t a t a , h.s.
i n f o r m s m e t h a t h i s w o r k o n t h e A n t s
D u t c h , a n d p u b l i s h e d i n Tijdschrift
879-80).—H. I ]
■
CHRYSIDIFORMES.
B y O . K e r t z R a d o s z k o v s k y .
The species of this group, generally very beautiful, are very like each
other m their metallic colours as well as in their form. A definition of
the differences of the species of each genus presents much difficulty
The descriptions of Fabricius, Latreille, and Klug, and even of Lucas
are so general and incomplete, that, notwithstanding the beautiful
drawings, it is often impossible to say to what species the described and
figured specimens of a given genus belong. Spinola first began to
describe separately the more characteristic parts of the body : from his
descriptions the identification is more practicable. Then Dahlbom
published his monograph (“ Hymenoptera Europaea,” tom. ii., Chrysis
in sensu Lmnaeano, Berolini; 1854). He paid particular attention to
the minutiae of all parts of the body, to the form of the frontal
depression, to the form of the third.ventral segment, and the armature
of the extremity of that segment, besides other parts of the body
Dividing the whole family into sharply-distinguished groups, he gave
synoptical tables for the definition of the genera and species. With
the aid of these tables and detailed descriptions, very often illustrated
by most excellent drawings, the definition of each species is fullv
possible. J
Regarding the work of Dahlbom as a model, and so far unique, for
the true definition of species of the family Chrysididae, I have followed
the system adopted by him, as far as possible, in the description of new
species. As to species already known and described I have
restricted myself to a Latin diagnosis, inviting the reader to turn
to Dahlbom s work for further details. It should be remarked
however, that notwithstanding the most minute description of a
spfecies, the change of colour of its body depending upon local and
climatic conditions, the transition from blue to greenish-blue, and
from golden-green to golden-redj may often give rise to doubt, and lead
to the fabrication of a supposed new species. For this reason, as
tar back as 1866,1 considered it useful to add to Dahlbom’s descriptions
explanatory coloured drawings of all Russian species in my possession,
for the same reason I give [in the original] drawings of all the
species collected m Turkistan, of which drawings did not exist. This
will also be useful, because, if a species identified by me is, though
very similar to, yet really distinct from, the species to which I referred it
an exact correction of my error will, at any time, be possible.
In the materials collected by Fedchenko I found 53* species, belonging
to the division Chrysidiformes, among which are 2 new genera and
15 new species. I am sorry that the locality of the very remarkable
new genusPolyodontus is unknown ; it was received from the Orenburg
museum without designation as to where it was found.