Viewing page 66 of 162

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

96.)

134. [[underlined]] Hadrodactylus [[/underlined]] [[insertion]] ^ [thomsoni?] [[/insertion]] sp. "Is [[underlined]] femoralis [[/underlined]] Holgrn. (now Thoms.) [[female symbol]], dark specimen. In the Swedish [[female symbol]] I have compared it with the face is black in the middle.  [[underlined]] H. femoralis [[/underlined]] Thoms. is [[underlined]] confusus [[/underlined]] Holmgrn." A.R.
134. From Glenmalus, WI. 3.6.26.
135. [[underlined]] Himertus defectivus [[/underlined]] ? "Correct. The first segment has glymmae, so the genus is a synonym of [[underlined]] Genarches [[/underlined]]". A.R.
135. from Borrisokane, NT. (R.A. Phillips) 19.8.27.
X 136. Is this [[underlined]] Meniscus [[/underlined]] impressor ? "Correct". A.R.
136 from Deputy's Pass, WI. 12.8.30.
137. Is this [[underlined]] Scopesus bicolor [[/underlined]] ? "Certainly"! A.R.
137 from "(1) Meeting of the Waters, WI. 24.7.30".

X 138. [[underlined]] Genarches sulphuratus [[/underlined]] [[male symbol]]
138 from Kilcarry, CW. 6.8.29
X 139 [[underlined]] G. Flavitarsus [[/underlined]] [[male symbol]] ?
[[curly bracket encapsulating above two entries]] Are these distinct & if so why do I not get [[2 female symbols]] of No. 139?
Roman replies :- "I do not think they are distinct, though I have taken neither myself, but I have a [[male symbol]] from the "Polish Corridor" with both face & hind tarsi pale, so I think these features are variable in colour". A.R.
139 from Strandbally, WA. 18.8.28.

[[end page]]
[[start page]]

(97.

140. Is this like your "[[underlined]] Cteniscus phaeorrhocus [[/underlined]] Hal."? When Morey overhauled the Haliday Ichneumonidae in 1913, he picked out two specimens & labelled them "[[underlined]] phaeorrhocus [[/underlined]] Hal." & one he designated as "type"; but neither of these has black hind legs (they are [[fulvsus?]] like the front legs) & one (not the "type") has the apex of the abdomen black.
Neither could be the same species as I now send you for examination & there is nothing like this now in the Haliday coll. Roman replies :- "Your specimen is a [[male symbol]] of [[underlined]] Exyston brevipetiolatus [[/underlined]] Thoms. ([[underilned]] Exent. triangulatorius [[/underlined]] Holmgn.). My "phaeorchocus" (only [[female symbol]] is a real [[underlined]] Cteniscus [[/underlined]], probably n.sp., more slender than the Exyston, with shining abdomen, no yellow on the face except the clypeus, the hind tibiae not yellow at the base & the red abdomen in narrower
140 from Clara, WI. 29.7.29.
141. I suppose this is a Microplectron ("Först. non Dbm. = [[underlined]] Smioroplectrus [[/underlined]] Thoms." A.R.) but which species please?
It seems to agree, in parts, with all four of those mentioned by Schmied! "It is [[underlined]] S. Bohemani [[/underlined]] Holmgr. [[male symbol]]. The [[female symbol]] is prettier, with more white. In U.S.A. this genus is known as [[underlined]] Anderis [[/underlined]] Davis." A.R.
141 from Glenasmole, DU. 23.5.30.

Transcription Notes:
Same first page as in project page 60. The transcription is copies from that page for consistency. Any edits should be repeated there.