Encyrtids

The higher classification of the Encyrtidae used in this catalog differs drastically from that proposed in the 1951 edition. Some explanation is necessary. Burks has considered the Signiphoridae and Aphelinidae as subfamilies of the Encyrtidae. In the 1951 catalog the aphelinids were considered a subfamily of the Eulophidae and the signiphorids were treated as a distinct family (Thysanidae). The aphelinids and signiphorids appear more nearly related to the Encyrtidae than to other families of chalcidoids. In placing the aphelinids under the Encyrtidae, the subfamilies of aphelinids (sensu Ferriere, 1965, Faune de l'Europe Bassin Medit., 1: 1-206) have been relegated to tribal status. ~Recently Trjapitzin (1973, Ent. Rev. 52 (1): 118-125; Ent. Rev. 52 (2): 287-295) has treated the higher classification of the Encyrtidae (sensu stricto) and provided a radical reorganization at the tribal and subfamilial levels. His classification has been adopted in the present treatment of the Encyrtidae. In so doing, however, the placement of several genera remains undecided. These will be treated in a separate publication. ~In this section the term "cosmopolitan" means the species is found throughout North America. ~I thank D. Miller and M. Stoetzel (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, IIBIII, U. S. Dept. Agr., Beltsville, Maryland) for providing correct names for homopterous hosts. D. P. Annecke (Plant Protect. Res. Inst., Pretoria, South Africa) gave his advice on the placement of several species earlier referred to Aphycus. ~The hosts cited in this section are only those reported for North America.