[Read before Nelson Philosophical Society. May 10.1954; received by the Editor, May 24, 1954.]

The New Zealand species of Doryctinae show considerable diversity in structure, and it is very likely that more than two genera are represented Nixon (1939, Ann. Mag Nat Hist, Vol. 3 (11) p. 482) defined the genus in a somewhat restricted sense, although he states “though not wider than those already allowed by the present definition of the genotype (Doryctes striatellus) (Nees) (By designation of Westwood)”. In the New Zealand forms there is considerable variation in the form of the abdomen, mainly in the relative length of the 1st abdominal tergite. It is quite evident, as Nixon has pointed out (loc. cit.) that there is need for a comprehensive generic revision and a re-definition of the Doryctinae genera. He states “… so that within it there exists no sound system of categories, whether they be given the rank of tribe, genus, or sub-genus, into which new species can be accommodated.” Ashmead (1900: 629) defined his genus Doryctomorpha mainly on the character that the 2nd recurrent vein in the forewing enters the 2nd cubital cell. This character is also shared by the genus Caenopachys Foerster, but in the latter genus the 2nd and 3rd abscissae of the radius and cubital veins are thickened and there is an anal cell present in the hindwing Although Doryctomorpha was originally separated from Doryctes, by this one character, it may be separated from other genera of Doryctinae by the following combination of characters:—

Head quadrate, its surface finely and minutely coraceous, the recurrent vein in forewing enters the 2nd cubital cell, and the cell itself, elongated and relatively narrow compared with the more typical forms of Doryctes and except for the short longitudinal and slightly converging carinae at the base, the 1st abdominal tergite is almost entirety smooth.

The above definition of the genus was arrived at from the examination of specimens from the Chatham Islands (Type locality) and from New Zealand. It would be difficult to warrant the retention of Ashmead's genus solely on the one venational character mentioned by the author in his key, but taking into account the general form and characters mentioned above Doryctomorpha antipoda Ashmead undoubtedly deserves generic status.

There is some doubt whether, another very distinctive species, Doryctes pallida Gourlay, is really co-generic with other more typical species of Doryctes. It differs mainly in its elongated thorax, and forewings, the relatively large 1st abdominal tergite, and the fine but distinct sculpture of the tergite (2 + 3) as well as a strong median longitudinal fovea extending from the anterior ocellus to the base of the clypeus. In the present state of our knowledge of these insects, and I am not familiar with many of the exotic genera of this subfamily, the

erection of a new genus for the reception of Gourlay's species does not appear to be warranted in the meantime, therefore, it will remain in Doryctes.