RESEARCH
Walker (1840) described Tbysanus to
Signiphoridae or Thysanidae? A Review of a
Problem in Family-level Nomenclature
(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)
James B. Woolley
ABSTRACT A historical account of the
classification of the family Signiphoridae
is presented with emphasis on works of
noml'nclatural significance at the genus
level and family level. The dispute over
the seniority of either Xana Kurdjumov
or Matritia Mercet cannot be resolved
until the precise month of Kurdjumov's
public:ltion can be established. The situ-
ation that has resulted in the use of two
family names, Thysanidae and Signiphor-
idae, for the Same taxon is discussed. It is
concluded that the name Thysanidae has
not won general acceptance, although a
case could be made for its conservation.
It is, therefore, proposed that Signiphori-
dae be adopted as the family-level name
for the group and that use of Thysanidae
be avoided.
B ecause of the enormous diversity
of insect groups, most entomol-
ogists organize their overall
knowledge of insects by the use of family
names. It is, therefore, disconcerting (and
aggravating to some) when there is incon-
sistency in the usage of family names.
Students of entomology, in particular,
often display considerable agitation when
informed that two or more different fam-
ily names have been used (or are used)
to refer to the same taxon by different
authorities. However, the science of sys-
tematics is progressive, and with new in-
formation or the application of improved
methodology changes in the classifica-
tions of organisms are both necessary and
james H. Woolley is all assistant profes-
sor in tbe Dep. of Entomology at Texas
A6JI {hzil'., College Station
SllMMER 19H6
History of the Problem
desirable. Unfortunately, changes in clas-
sification inevitably entail changes in no-
menclature and it is here that our nonsys-
tematist colleagues occasionally become
impatient. The rules of zoological nomen-
clature are designed to provide for stabil-
ity and consistency in the usage of names
and also, by the application of the princi-
ple of priority, to ensure that each taXOn
has a unique correct name. No body of
law can foresee all eventualities, however,
and occasionally the actions of competent
systematists, working to improve the clas-
sification of organisms and conscien-
tiously applying the rules of nomencla-
ture, create the confusion that all seek to
avoid.
An example of this sort of problem is
found in the Chalcidoidea, where a situa-
tion has developed over the years in
which two family-level names have been
applied to the same group of wasps: Sig-
niphoridae and Thysanidae. Unfortu-
nately, the matter does not present a clear
case of priority for one or the other;
hence, the dual usage in the literature. I
have been conducting revisionary work in
the group for several years and in the
context of this research have analyzed the
problem in some detail. The following is
an historical account of the problem that
focuses on papers of nomenclatural or
taxonomic significance at the genus or
family level. This paper is the first in a
series treating the systematics of the Sig-
niphoridae. A detailed review of the per-
tinent literature was required to ade-
quately address the complex nomencla-
tural problem that has evolved. Because
of the resulting length of the discussion,
and because the subject is of potential
interest to a wider audience of biologists,
I have decided to publish it separately.
hold Tater Halicby, and placed the ge-
nus in the Chalcidites (now the superfam-
ily Chalcidoidea). He did not further
place Th)'sanus in a higher classification
scheme or otherwise indicate its relation-
ship to other chalcidoids. Foerster (1856)
provided two unnecessary replacement
names for TbJ'sanus Walker, Triphasius
Foerster and Plastocbaris Foerster. He
placed Plastocharis in the Tetrastichoidea
in the Chalcidiae. In a subsequent paper
he (Foerster 1878) redescribed Plasto-
cbaris, described a new species in the
genus, and assigned Plastocharis to the
family Chalcididae. Howard (1895) fur-
ther restricted the placement of Plasto-
cbaristo the subfamily Aphelininae in the
Chalcididae. Dalla Torre (1898) recog-
nized that Tripbasius and Plastocbaris
Downloaded from http://besa.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 8, 2016
were objective junior synonyms of Tby-
sanus since they were based on the same
type species, Tater. He resurrected the
name TbJ'sanus and placed the genus in
the subfamily Aphelinae (sic) Howard.
Ashmead (1900) retained Tbysanusin the
Aphelinidae, which he then regarded as a
distinct family. However, in Ashmead's
(1904) classification of the Chalcidoidea
the Aphelinidae was relegated to subfam-
ily status in the family Eulophicbe and
Thysallus was likewise transferred.
Schmiedeknecht (1909) treated the genus
Thusanus Walker, a usage of Walker's
(1872) lapsus for Tb)'sanus, as a member
of the subtribe Aphelinina, tribe Apheli-
nini in the subfamily Eulophinae. Mercet
(1912) and Girault (1913b) followed Ash-
mead's (1904) classification and regarded
Tb)'sanus as a member of the subfamily
Aphelininae in the family Eulophidae.
The other generic name involved in this
nomenclatural problem, Signipbora, was
coined by Ashmead (880) but was not
placed in a family-level taxon at that time.
Howard (1894) then described the
subfamily Signiphorinae to contain Sig-
nipbora, designating the latter as the type
genus for the subfamily. Howard at that
time regarded many of the taxa currently
treated at the family level in the Chalci-
doidea as subfamilies in the Chalcididae;
it was intended that Signiphorinae stand
at the same level as, for example, the
Aphelininae. Dalla Torre (1898) also
placed Signipbora in the Signiphorinae
and considered the latter to be equal in
status to other subfamilies in the Chalci-
didae.
To further confuse the issue, Ashmead
0900,1904) assigned the Signiphorinae,
91
containing only Signiphora, to the Encyr-
tidae. Schmiedeknecht (1909) believed
that the Chalcidoidea consisted of one
family, Chalcicliclae, and treated Sign i-
phora as a member of the tribe Signiphor-
ini in Encyrtinae. Girault (1913c) re-
garded Signiphora as a member of the
Signiphorinae but did not explicitly men-
tion the pbcement of the subfamily. How-
ever, in Girault's (1913a) monograph of
the Signiphorinae (in which only the ge-
nus Signiphora was treated), he followed
Ashmead in regarding the subfamily as a
member of Encyrtidae. Girault (1913b)
mentioned for the first time the resem-
blance between Th)'sanusand Sigmphora
but did not modify the higher classifica-
tion of either genus. Brethes (1913) de-
scribed two species of Siglllphora, which
he placed in Chalcidiclae. In a subsequent
paper (Brethes 1914), he followed the
classification of Girault (1913a) for Sig-
nipbora. Rust (1913) described the genus
Neosigniphora to contain N nigra Rust,
and assigned this genus to Signiphorinae.
Viereck (1916) used the name Signiphor-
idae for the first time in a brief discussion
of Siglllpbora fla1!opalliata Ashmead;
however, he did not provide a justification
for elevating the group to the family level.
Girault 0915, 1916) followed his earlier
placement of Signiphora in Signiphori-
nae, Encyrtidae, and Mercet (1916), in
describing two subgenera of Sigmphora,
placed this genus in the "Signiphorinos,"
an apparent reference to the Signiphori-
nae. In a revision of the Signiphorinae of
Spain, Mercet (1917) transferred Th)'-
Sa/illS into the subfamily [or the first time,
Malenotti (1916) described one species
of Signiphora without discussing the
higher c13ssification of the genus and later
(Malenotti 1918) redescribed this spe-
cies, pbcing Signiphora in Signiphorini,
Encyrtinae, thus reverting to the classifi-
cation of Schmiedeknecht (1909).
Silvestri (918) placed in Th)'sanussev-
eral of the species treated as Signiphora
by previous authors (Ashmead 1900, Gi-
rault 1913a), specifically species con-
tained in the nigra species group of Sig-
niphora by Girault (1913a). This species
group did not contain the type species of
Sigmpbora (S. flal!Opalliata Ashmead),
thus Silvestri's action did not place Sig-
niphora into synonymy with Thysanus as
has sometimes been stated (Subba Rao
1957). Silvestri (1918) considered Thy-
sanus to be assignable to Chalcididae but
he made no mention of a tribal or subfam-
ily placement.
Timberlake (1924) was the next author
to use Signiphoridae at the family level.
lie synonymized Neosigmphorawith Thy-
92
sanus and accepted the inclusion of Gi-
rault's S. nigra species group in Th)'sanus,
although he stated that several of these
species might not actually belong in Thy-
SO/IUS. The usage of Signiphoriclae was
continued by several authors (Mercet
1927, Smith & Compere 1928, Dozier
1933, Blanchard 1936, Gomes 1942
(1941), Ghesquiere 1942), although Gi-
rault (1929) maintained his placement of
Signiphorinae in Encyrtidae. Dozier
(1933) apparently considered Signiphora
as synonymous with Th)'sanus, as he used
only the latter generic name in several
species descriptions. He may have been
influenced by Gahan, an apparent advo-
cate of synonymy of the two genera, al-
though Gahan did not publish the synon-
ymy. Gahan did, however, consistently
provicle workers with identifications of all
signiphorids under the genus Thysanus,
which resulted in the extensive use ofrhis
generic name in the economic literature.
In contrast, Richards (1935) stated that
Signiphora was definitely not a synonym
of Th)'sanus and followed Girault's usage
of the Signiphorinae. Ceballos (941)
also maintained Signipbora and Th)'sanus
as valid genera. He treated the signiphor-
ids as the Signiphorinae, Chalcicliclae,
along with Encyrtinae, Aphelininae, and
other taxa generally classified as families
today.
The convoluted story of the placement
of Thysanus involves yet more family-
level names. Schmiedeknecht (930) ap-
peared to place Tbysanus in the tribe
Gonatocerini in the family Mymaridae by
including the genus in a key to the my-
marids of north and central Europe. In an
earlier work (Schmiedeknecht 1909), he
included Thysanus (as Thusanus Walker
[sic]) in a key to the Gonatocerini but here
the genus was clearly indicated as being
a member of the tribe Aphelinini in the
Eulophinae. It is, therefore, likely that in
the later work (Schmiedeknecht 1930) he
simply neglected to mention his view of
the correct placement of Tb)'sanus. No
ambiguity was associated with the action
of Ghesquiere (1942), who combined the
families Signiphoridae and Mymaridae (in
part) to form the new superfamily Myma-
roidea, to stand apart from the Chalcidoi-
dea and Proctotrupoidea. Although De-
bauche (948) did not explicitly treat the
placement of the signiphorids, he did re-
ject this classification and no subsequent
authors have followed this scheme.
Another nomenclatural problem in the
Signiphoridae began with the description
of the genus Xana by Kurdjumov (1916)
to hold the type species X. nigra Kurdju-
mov. Mercet (1916) described the
subgenus Matritia to include the type
species Siglliphora (Matritia) conjugalis
Mercet. Giwult 0929, 1932) described
three additional species of Matritia, thus
implicitly elevating the taxon to the genus
rank. Nikol'skaya (1950) brought the ge-
nus Xana into the Signiphoridae, synon-
ymized the subgenus Signiphora (Matri-
tia) under Xana, and described the genus
Signiphorilla Nikol'skaya. She thus rec-
ognized four valid genera in the family
and considered 77J)'Sa/lUSand Signipbora
as distinct. Although most authors have
recognized Xana and Matritia as synon-
yms, the priority of one name or the other
is not clear. Nikol'skaya (19'52) main-
tained Xalla as the senior synonym, as did
Erdos (1958, 196<i), Rozanov (965), De
Santis 0968, 1973, 1979), and Hayat
(1970). However, many other authors
have treated Matritia as the senior syn·
onym (Ferriere 1953, 1957, Agarwal 1963,
Kerrich 1953, Novitsky 195<i, Peck et al.
Downloaded from http://besa.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 8, 2016
1964, Subba Rao 197--1,Hayat 1976, Gordh
1979, Hayat & Verma 1980). Some authors
(cf. Kerrich 1953, Subba Rao 1974, Gordh
1979) have indicated that Kurdjumov's
description was actually published in
1917, Mercet's publication bears the date
December 1916 and Kurdjumov's only the
year ]916. Thus, under Article 21 of the
International Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature Ord edition), both have the as-
sumed date of 31 December 1916. As
pointed out by Novitsky (954), it is nec-
essary to determine 'the precise month of
Kurdjumov's publication to resolve this
problem,
In a move that would have a lasting
effect on the nomenclalllre of the family,
Peck (1951) synonymized Signipboraand
Matritia with Tbysanus and instituted the
use of the family name Thysanidae Peck.
Changing the family name to reflect a new
synonymy o[ its type genus \Vas correct
under the International Rules o/Zoologi-
cal Nomenclature in use at that time,
Under Article 40 o[ the present hzterna-
tional Code 0/ Zoological Nomenclature
(3rd edition), a family name would not
be changed in similar circumstances,
Following the publication of Peck
(951), the higher classification of the
group was somewhat more stable than
during the previous century of taxonomic
work. Several authors accepted the syn-
onymy of Signipbora, Neosigmpbora, Ma-
tritia, and Xalla under Tbysallusand used
the family name Thysanidae (Domeni-
chini ] 952, 1954, 1955, Kerrich 1953, Nov-
itsky 1954, De Santis 1957, Subba Rao
1957, Burks 1958). Kerrich (1953) pro-
vided an outline of the generic classifica-
tion and a taxonomic analysis of the gen-
BULLETIN OF THE ESA
era that had been proposed 10 date. He
concluded that he could not define the
various ~enera satisfaClorily and used Tb)'-
smllls for all species treated. Thompson
((9"i·j) provided Iiteralllre citations for
Neosigl/ipbora I/igra and Sigl/ipbora dlp-
/eropbaga G irault, but listed other species
untlL'r the ~l>nus Tb.1'sallIIs. All species
ml'ntioned hy Thompson were listed as
Encyrtidae without subfamily or tribal
designation. Peck (963) included the
monotypic genus M.1'ioC1U'lIlaAshmead in
tilt' Signiphoridae (with no explanation)
but treated S(f!,l/ipbora, Neosiglllpbora,
and ,t!a/rilia as synonyms of Tb)'sa11us.
No subsequent authors have retained
M.1'ioCl/('lI1aAshmead in the signiphorids
and this genus is usually placed in the
Aphl'linidae or Aphelininae (d. Gordh
1979, lIayat (983) although its relation-
ship 10 other aphelinids is problematical
(Yasnosh 1983).
Nikol'skaya 09'>2) continued to use
Signiphorid:le following the classification
of her earl ier paper (Nikol'skaya 1950)
and included four valid genera. Erdos
((9"i7) descrihed the genus Clytilla in the
Signiphoridae and apparemly considered
Thysanidae a synonym. In subsequent pa-
pers, however, Erdi>s (1958, 196-1)used
Thysanidae (= Signiphoridae) and Thy-
sanidaejSigniphoridae. He cominued to
folio\\' the generic classification of Ni-
kol'skap (I 9'>0, 19'>2)with the addition
of his genus ely/i1la. Ferriere (953)
treated the group as the subfamily Signi-
phorinae in Encyrtidae. He accepted the
synonymy of Neosigllipbora with Thy-
smlllS but maintained Jla/ritia and Sigl/i-
pbora as valid genera and raised Siglllpho-
rella Mercet to generic status (Siglllpho-
rella was originally described as a sub-
genus of Sigl/ipbora hy Mercet [1916]).
Agarwal (1965) used Thysanidae but oth-
erwise followed the generic classification
of rerriere (1953). Novitsky (195..•) also
used Thysanidae but regarded five genera
as valid: Tb.1'smllls,Sigl/ipbora, Neosiglli-
pbora, Ma/ritia, and Sigllipboril/a. Fer-
rit're 09'>7) used Thysanidae but re-
garded at least four genera as valid: Tby-
SlIIlIIS, ,l1a/ri/ia, Sigllipborilla, and Siglli-
pbora (including Sigllipborella). Peck
(] 963) treated all genera as synonyms of
TlI)'smllls, but used the family name Sig-
niphoridae, an apparenr conrradiction that
was nm discussed. Peck et al. (196-1)used
Thysanidae and provided a key to three
genera: q)'thw, 77J)'s(wUS,and Siglli-
pbora in which Sigl/ipbora, Sigl/ipborilla,
and Ma/ritia were included as subgenera.
Thus, by 196-1a plethora of classifications
had bcen proposed for the family, with
various authors proposing various combi-
SIiMMEH 19H6
nations of valid genera under one of two
family-level names.
Rozanov (1965) made several impor-
tam comributions to the higher classifi-
cation of the family. He used the name
Signiphoridae and although he did not
discuss the problem of the two family-
level names then in use he did provide a
history of various generic classifications.
The genus Cbartoeerus Motschulsky
(Motschulsky 1859) was brought into the
family for the first time and was divided
into three subgenera: Cbar/oeerus, Xana,
and Signipborina. The genus Kerriebiella
Rozanov was described and Tbysan us,
Signipbora, and Clytina were redes-
cribed, with considerable attention given
to the diagnostic characteristics for each
genus. Thus, Rozanov recognized five
valid genera and, in particular, argued
against the synonymy of Tbysanus and
Signipbora.
In the two decades following the work
of Rozanov (965), the higher classifica-
tion of the family has remained relatively
stable. Most authors have continued to use
Signiphoridae as the family name (Sugon-
yaev 1968, De Santis ] 968, 1972, 1973,
1979, Rozanov 1969, Haym 1970, 1976,
Quezada et al. 1973, Subba Rao 1974,
Trjapitzin 1978, Hayat & Verma 1980).
However, Yoshimoto (1965) treated sev-
eral species under the Thysaninae of En-
cyrtidae, De Santis & Esquivel (966)
listed the Argentine species of Signiphora
under the Thysanidae, De Santis (967)
listed the Argentine species of Tb)'sallus
and Siglllpbora under Thysanidae, and
Burks (967) maintained the use of the
single genus Tb)'sanus in Thysanidae.
Riek (970) treated the group as the Thy-
saninae, a subfamily of the Encyrtidae
along with the Aphelininae, Tanaostig-
modinae, Eupelminae, and Encyrtinae. Of
particular interest during this period are
the detailed arguments presented by De
Santis (1968) and Quezada et al. (973)
for the conservation of Signiphoridae
based on their perceptions that Thysani-
dae had not won general acceptance.
Kloet & Hincks (1978) avoided the issue
and listed the British species under both
family names. In the textbook used by
many beginning entomology students in
the United States, Borror et al. (981)
used Thysanidae as they have in all pre-
vious editions. Another basic text by Rich-
ards & Davies (1977) also used Thysani-
dae.
De Santis (1968) resurrected the genus
Neosignipbora Rust but otherwise fol-
lowed the classification of Rozanov
(965). He also divided the group into
two subfamilies: the Thysaninae Peck
containing the genera Tbysallus, Cbar/o-
eerus, Neosignipbora, and Clylina, and
the Signiphorinae Howard containing Sig-
nipbora and Kerricbiella. This scheme
was followed in his paper on the signi-
phorids of Argentina (De Santis 1973),
but otherwise has not been widely ac·
cepted (but cf. Gordh 1979). Hayat
(1970) followed the generic and subge-
neric classification of Rozanov (965) as
did Subba Rao (974) with two minor
exceptions. Subba Rao argued for the
priority of Matrilia Mercet over Xana
Kurdjumov and, thus, used Ma/ritia for
one subgenus of Chartocerus. This argu-
ment was subsequently accepted by Hayat
(976). Subba Rao (974) also erected
the genus Rozanoviel/a Subba Rao to in-
clude several of the Neotropical species
discussed by Kerrich (953) as a species
group of Tbysanus (sensu lata) . Trjapitzin
(978) retained the classification of Roz-
anov (1965) and simply listed Xana and
Downloaded from http://besa.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 8, 2016
Sigmpborina as synonyms of Cbar/oce-
rus.
Gordh (1979) reduced the status of the
signiphorids to the subfamily Signiphori-
nae in Encyrtidae but otherwise followed
the classification of Rozanov, at least for
the three genera (Tbysanus, Signipbora,
and Cbar/oeerus) known from North
America. Gordh (979) retained the
subfamilies of De Santis (968) as tribes
and presented Cbar/oeerus without a
subgeneric classification, listing Xa1la,
Ma/ri/ia, and Signipborina as synonyms.
Neosignipbora was listed as a synonym of
Tbysanus. The placement of the group as
a subfamily of the Encyrtidae has not been
followed by subsequent authors (De San-
tis 1980, Hayat & Verma 1980) who have
continued to use the name Signiphoridae.
In two general treatments of regional
faunas of Chalcidoidea, Prinsloo (1980)
and Yoshimoto (1984) have both used
Signiphoridae.
De Santis (1979) did not include Roz-
anol'iella in his catalog of the Neotropical
species and otherwise his previous clas-
sification is unchanged, with Neosigni-
pbora treated as a valid genus and Xana
and Signipborina treated as valid subge-
nera of Cbar/oeerus. Hayat & Verma
(1980) followed a similar plan except that
Rozanouiella was included, raising the
number of valid gencra to seven, and Ma-
/rilia was given priority ovcr Xana and
treated as a subgenus of Cbartocerus.
Those authors did not address the subfam-
ily classification of De Santis (1968). In
the first supplement to his catalog, De
Santis (1981) included Rozanoviella in
the Signiphorinae.
The history of family-level nomencla-
93
ture for the group can be divided into in use at that time. Although the name Ashmead, W. H. 1880. Orange insects. A trea·
three periods. Following the description Thysanidae was used by most authors (in tise on the injurious :lIld beneficial insects
of the Signiphorinae by Howard (1894) 15 taxonomic publications) following found on the orange trees of Florida. Ash-
mead. Jacksonville, Fla.
and before the catalog of Peck (1951), Peck (1951) ancl before Rozanov (1965),
1900. Gener:1 of the Encyrtinae. Subfamily
most authors used the family name Sig- acceptance of Thysanidae was not general
lIJ-Signiphorinae. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 22:
niphoridae or the equivalent subfamily even during that period. Since Rozanov
'109--t12.
name Signiphorinae, which was placed in (1965), the majority of authors (in 17 1904. Classification of the chalcid flies or the
the Encyrtidae. taxonomic publications) have used Sig- superfamily Chalcidoidea with descriptions
During the second period, following niphoriclae, and of the six authors who of new species in the Carnegie Museum,
Peck (1951) and before the publication used Thysanidae, the most recent was collected in South America hy Herbert J.
of Rozanov's (1965) analysis, most au- Borror et al. (1981) in a general textbook. Smith. Mem. Cifilegie Mus. 1(,1): xi + 221
thors used Thysanidae, although Ni- A case could be made that following Peck 511.
kol'skaya (1952), Erdos (1957), and Peck (1951) Thysanidae became established in Blanchard, E. E. 1936. Apuntes sobre Calcidoi-
(1963) used Signiphoridae, and Ferriere the literature and, therefore, entomolo- deos Argentinos, Nuevos y Conocidos. Rl'V.
Soc. EnlOmol. Argenl. H: 1·-32.
(1953) and Ceballos (1956) used Signi- gists should have continued to use Thy-
Borror, D.]., D. M. Delong & C. A. Triplehorn.
phorinae. However, the latter author sanidae even after most were persuaded
1981. An introductionlO the study of insect.s,
treated Siglliphora as the junior synonym by Rozanov (1965) that Thysanusand Sig- 5th ed. S:lunders. Philadelphi:1.
of Tb)'sanlls. nipbora were distinct genera. However, Brethes, J. 1913. lIimeniJpteros de la America
During the third period, from Rozanov this did not occur and little purpose Meridional. An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos
(1965) to the present, seven publications would now be served by reinstituting the Aires 2-t: 35-165.
(Yoshimoto 1965, De Santis & Esquivel usage of a name that most have dropped. 1914. Les ennemies de Ia "Diaspis penta·
1966, Burks 1967, De Santis 1967, Riek The best solution is to consider that Thy- gona" dans b Republique Argentine, pp. 1
1970, Richards & Davies 1977, Borror et sanidae has never won general acceptance ] 6. Nunquam Otiosus.

Downloaded from http://besa.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 8, 2016

al. 1981) used either Thysanidae or Thy- in the sense of the Code, as De Santis Burks, B. D. 1958. Family Thysanidae, p. 69. III
K. V. Krombein led. j, Ilymenoptera of Amer-
saninae, while 17 publications have used (968) and Quezada et al. (1973) have
ica north of Mexico. Synoptic Catalog. First
either Signiphoridae or Signiphorinae also argued. Following this reasoning, the
Supplement. U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. Monogr.
(De Santis 1968, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1980, use of Signiphoridae should be main- 2
1981, Sugonyaev 1968, Rozanov 1969, tained. This course would be the least 1967. Family Thysanidae, pp. 2.11··2.16. III K.
Hayat 1970, Quezada et al. 1973, Subba disruptive to current usage and, if fol· V. Krombein &: B. D. Burks [eds.], ] rymenop-
Rao 1974, Hayat 1976, Trjapitzin 1978, lowed, will lead to minimal confusion in tera of America north of Mexico. Synoptic
Gordh 1979, Hayat & Verma 1980, Prins- the future. Catalog. Second Supplemenl. U.S. Dep.
100 1980, Yoshimoto 1984). Kloet & At present, this course is being followed Agric. Agric. Monogr. 2.
Hincks (1978) used both family names by specialists in the systematics of Chal· Ceballos, G. ]941. Las Tribus de los Himen·
with no distinction between them, while cidoidea. De Santis (968) and Quezada iJpteros de Espana. Instit. Espanol de Ento·
mol., Madrid.
Trjapitzin (1978) used Signiphoridae et al. (973) discussed this problem and
1956. Cat£t!ogo de los Ilimen(Jpteros de Es·
(Thysanidae) . reached conclusions similar to my own.
p:lna. C.S.I.c.. Instil. Espanol de Entomol.,
However, their arguments do not address Madrid.
certain issues, such as whether it was ap- Dalla Torre, C. G. de. 1898. Cltalogus Hymen·
Conclusions
propriate for Rozanov (1965) to resume opterorum hucusque descriplOrum systemi-
Article 40 of the International Code of the use of Signiphoridae once Thysanidae cus et synonymicus. Vol. V: Chalcididae et
Zoological Nomenclature (3rd edition) is had been in general use. Their recom- ProclOtrupidae. Sumptibus Guilelmi Engel-
pertinent to this problem (only the rele- mendations have not been universally mann, Lipsiae.
vant sections are given): adopted, as evidenced by the continued Debauche, H. R. 1948. Etude sur les Mymarom·
Article 40(a). After 1960.-When, midae et les Mymaridae de la Belgique (Hy-
use of Thysanidae by some authors. Per-
menoptera: Chalcidoidea). Mem. Mus. Hist.
after 1960, the generic name on which haps with a wider appreciation of the
Nat. Beige. lOB: ]-2-tB.
a valid family-group name is based is background of the problem, the confusion
De Samis, L. 1957. Anotaciones sobre Calci-
rejected as a junior synonym, that fam- over the two family names can be laid to doideos Argentinos (Hymenoptera). Notas
ily-group name is not to be replaced rest. Mus. Pbta Zool. 19: 107-119.
unless the conditions of Subsection (i) ] 967. Cat£t!ogo de los Himen()pteros Argen-
apply. tinos de la Serie Parasitica, incluyendo Be-
Acknowledgment
Article40(b). Before 1961.-Ifafam- t1wloidea. Comisi(JIl de Investigaci()J1 Cicn-
ily-group name has been replaced be- I thank Horace Burke and Robert Wharton tifica, Provo Buenos Aires Gober., La Pbta.
fore 1961 because of such synonymy, for reviewing the manuscript. Kenneth Cooper, ] 968. Nomenclatura y clasificaci()J1 de la fam-
and the replacement name has won Gordon Gorclh, .John LaSalle, and .John Pinto iii;! Signiphoridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoi-
read earlier drafts and made many useful com· dea). Rev. Fac. Agron. -t-t: 7-16.
general acceptance, it is to be main-
ments regarding nomenclatural problems. This ] 972. Complejo enlOmof{lgico de Acfertla
tained.
paper is Technical Article No. 20-t15 of the Tex. campillellsis (Hom.) en el estado de Alagoas
Article 40(b)(ii). In the event of di·
Agric. Exp. Stn. (Brasil). An. Soc. EnlOmol. Bras. 1(1): ]7-
vergent interpretations of the expres- 2-t.
sion "general acceptance", the case is ] 973. Nota sobre signiforidos de la Repllblica
References Cited
to be referred to the Commission for a Argentina (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).
decision. Agarwal, M. M. 1963. ,lJatritia kerricbi n. sp. Rev. Fac. Agron. -19: ]-13-153.
As noted above, Peck (1951) was quite (Hymenoptera: Thysanidae) an endoparasite 1979. Catalogo de los Himen()pteros Calci-
correct to change the family name to Thy- of EriococclIS greelli Newsl. recorded from doideos de America :11 Sur de los Estados
sanidae under the rules of nomenclature Aligarh (India). Z. Parasitenkd. 22: 389-393. Unidos. Puhlicaci(JI1 Especial, Provo de Bue-

94 BULLETIN OF THE ESA

 1l0S Aires, COl11isillll de Investigaciones
Cil'lltificas, La Plata.
19HO. Cat(t!ogo de los llil11enopteros Brasi·
kilos de la Sl'rie Pawsitica incluyelldo Be·
thyloidl'a. Editora da llni\'lTsidade Federal
do Par~lI1a, Curitiha.
19H1. C~Il(t!ogo de los Hil11ellopteros Calci·
doidl'oS de AmcriC:1 al Sur de los Estados
1I1lidos I'riml'r Suplcl11l'nto. Rev. Peru. EIl-
IOmo!. 2·~l I ): I 3H.
Ik Santis, L. & L. Esquivel. 1966. Tl'rcl'ra lisw
de Ilil11l'llllptl'ros pari~itos y prl'datores de
los illSl'l'lllS de Ia Ikpllhlica Argentilla. Rev.
Mus. La Plata Sl'cr. Zoo!. 9: ..•7-21 ';.
I)oml'nichini, G. 19';2. Pawssiti e ipl'rparassiti
di J'.H'lItlOCOCCIIS citri Risso in It~llia e Ilel
Pl'rtl. HoI!. Zoo!. Agrar. Hachic. 17(3): 1-26.
19';·i. Sulla morfologia l' posiziolle sistema-
tica dl'i Thys~lI1idal'(= Signiphoridae) (Hym.
Chakidoidl'a). Zoo I. Agrar. Bachic. 20(2):
93 110.
19';';. \'ariabilita dl'i caralleri e nuova diag-
ll<lSi di un Tisanidal' (Hym. Chalcidoidea)
COil Ia dl'scrizionl' di una nuova specie. Ann.
Fal'. Agrar. (n. s.) .~:2';-"12.
I)ozil'r, H. L. 1933. Miscellaneous notes and
descriptions of chalcidoid parasites (Hyme-
IHlpll'ra). Proc. Emol11ol. Soc. Wash. 3';(6):
H'i 100.
Erdos, J. 19';7. Ikcl'miores observationes en-
111l11ol'()l'nological'in Pbmgm itl' COII/II/UIIi
Trin. Allatani Kozl. ..•60 ..2): ..•9-6';.
19';H. A pi IElssz(II'nYll lThysanidae) es tetli-
nllll(') lAplll'linidae> fel11flirkeszek faunaka-
lalogus~1l's l'[()logi~li ~Idatai(Cat. Hym. XII).
Foli~1Elllomol. llung. 11(';): 71-102.
196 ..•. Thysanidal' piIElssZ(1rI1)i1femflirke-
sZl'k l= Signiphoridae), pp. :320-327. III Ma-
gyararorsz(lg t\lIatvilaga Fauna lIungariae,
XII Kiill't (Hymenoptera II) ';. Flizet: Fem·
flirkt'szl'k III. Chalcidoidea III. Akademi-
~likiadl), Bud~lpl'st.
Fcrrierc, C. 19';3. Enc)'rtides paleartiques
( II)'m. Chalcidoidea). Nouvelle table des ge·
nl'rl'S awl' notL's l't synonymies. Mitt.
Scll\wiz. EnlOmo!. Ges. 260): 1..-6.
19'57. DiL' parasitl'n \'011SjJilucocclIs lIallal'
SchmUllerl'r ill SLid-Bayern. Opusc Zool.
(~lul'nclll'll) 10: 1 9.
Focrstcr, A. IH'56. lIymenoplerologische Stu·
tlil'll. Vo!. II, Chalcidiae ulld ProctOlrupii.
\"['rlag von Ernsl ter Meer, Aachen.
1H"7H.Kleine ~lollographiL'n Parasilischer Hy-
ml'IHlptl'rl'n. Vl'rh. Naturhist. Vcr. Preuss.
Rheinl. \X·l'stf. 3';: ·J2·H2.
Ghcsquierl',J. 19..j2. Contribution a l'ewde des
Ilymt'nOpIl'rl'S du Congo Beige, IX---Rem-
arqul's sur Ia famille des Mymarides et de·
srription d\'Spl'CCS nouvelles. Rev. Zool.
Bllt. Afr. Yl(3): 51'"' 32H.
Gir'lult, A. A. 1913a. A systematic mOl1ograph
of the chalridoid Hymenoptera of the
suhfamily Signiphorinae. Proc. U.S. Natl.
l\1u.~.·f';: I H9 233.
1913h. Australian Ilymenoptera Chalcidoi-
dl'a. 1\' ThL' family Eulophidal' with de-
srriptions llf new genera and species. Mem.
QUl'l'nsl. Mus. 2: I·~0296.
] 913c. A ne\\' Sigllipbom from Queensland,
Australia. Entomlli. News 2--1:166-167.
SliMMER I9H6
] 915. Australian Ilymenoptera Chalcidoidea.
VII. The family Enc)'rtidae with descriptions
of new gener~1and species. Mem. Queens!.
Mus. "I: I-IH"I.
1916. New Encyrtid~le from North Americl.
Psyche 23: --1]-"12.
1929. Notes on, and descriplions of chalcid
wasps in the South Australian Museum. Con-
cluding Paper. Trans. R. Soc. South Ausl. 53:
309-3"16.
1932. New Lower Hymenoptera from Aus-
tralia and Indi:!. Brisbane, Australia. [privately
printed].
Gomes, J. G. 1942 (1941). Subsidios a siste·
m(llica dos calcidideos brasileiros. Bol. Esc.
Nac. Agron. (Rio de Janeiro) 2: 1--37.
Gordh, G. 1979. Family Encynidae, pp. 890-
967. III K. V. Krombein, P. D. Hurd, Jr., D. R.
Smith &. B. D. Burks [cds.], Catalog of Hy·
menoptera in America north of Mexico. Yol.
1, Symphyta and Apocrila (Parasitica). Smith-
sonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Hayat, M. 1970. SllIdil's on the genera of the
family Signiphoridae (Hymenoptera: Chal·
cicloidea) recorded from India. Entomo-
phaga 15("1):387--399.
1976. Some I ndian species of Cbartocerus
(H)'m.: Chalcidoide:l: Signiphoridae). Ori·
ent. Insects 10(2): 161--16..•.
1983. The genera of Aphelinidae (Hymenop-
lera) of the World. SYSl.Entomol. 8: 63-102.
I-Iayat, M. & M. Verma. 1980. A catalogue of
the Indian Signiphoridae (Insecta: Hyme-
noptera: Chalcidoidea).J. Bombay Nat. Hisl.
Soc. "76(3): ..•81---185.
Howard, l. O. 1894. The hymenopterous par-
asites of the California recl scale. Insect Life
(USDA) "I: 227--236.
1895. Revision of the Aphelininae of North
America. Tech. Ser. No.1, Div. Entomol.,
U.S. Dep. Agrie.
International Union of Biological Sciences.
] 985. International code of zoological no·
menclalllre, 3rd cd. Univ. of California,
Berkeley.
Kerrich, G. J. ]953. Report on Encyrtidae as-
sociated with mealyhugs on cacao in Trini-
dad and 011 some other species related
therelo. Bull. Entomol. Res...•..•('1): 789-810.
Kloct, G. S. & W. D. Hincks. ] 978. A check list
of British insects, 2nd edition. lIandbooks
for the IdentifiGltion of British Insects,
1 H..•
). Hoyal Entomological Society, London.
Kurdjumov, N. V. 1916. New genus and species
of Aphelininae (Chalcidoidea). Zh. Prikl. En·
to mol. (Kiev) I(I): 80--81.
MalcnoUi, E. 1916. "Signiphora merceti"
Malen. n. sp. Hedia 12(1-2): 181-182.
1918. I nemici naturali della "Bianci-Hossa"
(Cbr)'sompballls dict)'ospermi Morg.). Redia
] 3: 17-53.
Mercet, R. G. 1912. Los enemigos de los par·
asitos de las plantas. Los Afelininos. Trab.
Mus. Cienc. N:lt. Madrid 10: 1--306.
] 916. Signiphorinos de Espalla (Himenop-
leros Chalcididos). Bol. R. Soc. Esp. Hist.
Nal. 16: 519-533.
1917. Revision de los Signiphorinos de Es·
palla. Rev. H. Acad. Ciene. Exactas Fis. Nal.
M~ldrid 16(..•): 1-11.
1927. Calcididos Africanos y de la Isla de
Madera. Eos Hev. Esp. Entomol. 3("1): "189-
'199.
MOlschulsky, V. de. 1859. IV-Entomologie
appliquee. Insectes utiJes et nuisihles. Etud.
Entomol. H: 169.. 17"1.
Nikol'skaya, M. N. 1950. Hepresentatives of the
family Signiphoridae (Hymenoptera: Chal-
cidoidea) in the fauna of the U.S.S.H. Dokl.
Akad. Nauk SSSR75(2): 319-321 (in Rus-
sian).
]952. The chalcid fauna of the U.S.S.H.Akad.
Nauk SSSH,Moscow and Leningrad (in Hus-
sian, English translation: Israel Prog. Sci.
Transl., Jerusalem, 1963).
Novitsky, S. 1954. Sinonimia e distrihuzione
geographica di Sig/lljJborilla suhaellea
Foersl. (Hym. Chale. Thysanidae), iperpar-
assita clei coccidi (Psl'uducuccus sp.). Ann.
Fac. Agrar. (n. s.) 3: 245-255.
Peck, O. 19';1. Family Thysanidae, pp. 472-
47"1.III C. F. W. Muesebeck, K. V. Krombein
&. H. K. Townes {eds.], Ilymenopter'l of
America north of Mexico-Synoptic Catalog.
U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. Monogr. 2.
Downloaded from http://besa.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 8, 2016
1963. A catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoi·
dea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Can. Entomol.
Suppl. 30.
Peck, 0., Z. Boueck & A. Hoffer. 1964. Keys to
Ihe Chalcidoidea of Czechoslovakia (Insecta:
Hymenoptera). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 3'1.
Prinsloo, G. L. ]980. An illustrated guide to
the families of African Chalcidoidea (Insecta:
Hymenoptera). Sci. Bull., Dep. Agric. Fish.,
Hep. SOllth Afr. 395: 1-66.
Quezada, J. R., P. DeBach & D. Rosen. 1973.
Biological and taxonomic studies of Siglli·
phara baril/quellsis, new species, (Hyme-
noptera: Signiphoridae), a primary parasite
of diaspine scales. Hilgardia 410H): 5..•3-
60..•.
Richards, O. W. ] 935. Two new parasites of
aculeate Hymenoptera from Trinidad. Sty·
lops 4: 131-133.
Richards, O. W. & R. G. Davies. 1977. Imms'
general texthook of entomology, 10th ed,
vol. 2. Chapman &. H~III, London.
Rick, E. F. 1970. Hymenoptera, pp. 867-959.
III CSIRO, Div. of Entomol. [cd.], Insects of
Australia. Melbourne University, Melbourne.
Rozanov, L. Y. 1965. Review of the genera of
parasitic Hymenoptera of the family Signi·
phoridae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). En·
tomol. Hev. 'H: '508-5]'5.
1969. Redescription of Cbartocerus m/lscifor·
mis Motschulsky (Hymenoptera, Signiphori-
dae) reared from a mealybug (Pselldococci-
dae) from the coffee tree on Ceylon. Ento-
mol. Hev. --18(2):199-200.
Rust, E. W. 19]3. New Peruvian parasites from
I/emicbiol/aspis millOr (: Iym.). Entomol.
News 2..•(4): 160-165.
Schmiedeknecht, O. 1909. Hymenoptera. Fam-
ily Chalciclidae. Fasc.97, '5'50pp. /11 P. Wyts-
man, Genera Insectorum. Yerteneuil &. Des-
met, Bruxelles.
1930. Die Hymenopteren Nord- und Mille·
leuropas. Gustav Fischer, Jena.
Silvestri, F. 1918. II genere Tbysal/Ils Walker
(Hymenoptera: Chalciclidae). Boll. Lab.
95
 att!2 Kjs2 Elwfw2+TtwynjH 23; 377.382/
Wrnym.L2 W2 ( L2 Gtrujwj2 2:39/ E uwjqnrnsfw• RESEARCH
wjutwyts nsxjhy uuqwfxnyjx tkmqfhp xhfqj. firY/
YnZri xunin +Fjwsfwi,2 qMsnc)2 Gfqnk2Fjwpjqj•.
Tzmq2Isytrt!2 .2):,; 3;K.4/2.2/
Wzggf Vft2 F2 V2 2:68/ Wtrj sj~ xujhnjx tk
Msinfs Mq•rjstuyjwf2 Twth Msinfs Ehfi2 Whn2.
Wjhy2F .27; ;(B87.<4:1/
2:85/ Xmj ljsjwf tk Wnlsnumtwnifj +L•rj1
stuyjwf, ~nymijxhwnuynts tk f sj~ ljszx2
Fzqq2Isytrtq2 Vjx2 7.2; 636.642/
Wzlts•fj{. I2 5=:<2 Rj~ hmfqhni xujhnjx +L•v
AdgaPlHlhblPffdgb ChTae nh Findfdta
rjstuyjwf.
nsl uq>qsq
Gmfqhnitnijf, ufwfxnynhts ozruv
qnhjfsi xhfqj nsxjhyx +Ltrtuyjwf.
CPgPbafagn -aSdmdhgmpdnc Coendiea Hamnm( )g
Tx•qqtijf. Gthhnijf, kwtr ymj ijxjwyx fsi
~uqxyjqfsix tk Wt{njy Gjrwfq Exnf fsi Of1
?gnablPnaTNhsRaPg HamnCPgPbafagn :rPfiea
tfpmxyfs2 Isytrtq2 Vjc)2.28)4,; 472.481/
Xmtruxts. [2 V2 5=982 E hfyfqtlzj tk ymj
ufwfxnyjx fsi uwjifytwx tk nsxjhy ujxyx2 Wjh1
ynts 6. Ltxy ufwfxnyj hfyfqtlzj. TfwyMMM. Ltxyx VgsxxK/ Kyxglmrw-Oisr J/ Kmkpi£-Oevv£S/ Sihmks- erh
tk ymj L•rjstuyjwf +Gfqqnhjwfyni yt I{f1 Sixiv K/ Fepomrw
snni,. uu2 2:2.X3/ Gtrrts~2 Msxq2Fntqtl1
nhfqGSqqqwtq. Ssf~f2
Xnrgjwqfpj. T2L2 5=682 Xmj ufwfxnyjx tk dYn[/
mxlxll[Y vi{rZrv[Y +Imwmtws,ns Gfqnktwsnf

Downloaded from http://besa.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 8, 2016

+Mq•rjstuyjwf. Gmfqhnitnijf,2 TfwyM2Xf·t1 DEVWUDFWD pmrievtvskveqqmrk qship ypevp£xvyi jsv zipzixpiej gsrxvsp/ Imrepp£-
strnh xyzinjx2 qMsn{2
Gfqnk2Tzgq2.Xjhm2 Fzqq2 {ew hizipstih gsqfmrmrk £miphpswwhexe jyxyvi viwievgl riihw evi hmwgywwih- {mxl
4)3,; 334.3(62/ jvsq jmiph wxyhmiwsr qypxmtpi tiwxw sj iqtlewmw sr vspi sj vmwoqerekiqirx
Xwofunytns.Z2 E2 2:89/ Gjr2 Wnlsnumtwnifj
ws£fier- Tu)'lrwn vi^ +P2, Pivvmpp-erh {mxlmrmrxikvexih tiwx qerekiqirx/
+Xm•xfsnifj,. uu2 624.(627/ JJJK2 G2 Qji1
igsrsqmg gvmxivmejsv 2:95/ Emspskmgep
{jijc) bhi2d.Mqfsimtqqp tk ymj nsxjhyx tk ymj

V
Izwtujfs ufs tk ymh Y2W2W2V2. {tq2 MMM2 L•1
gsijjmgmirxw{ivi fewih sr xli tlirsq. xivr
ix ep/ )2:(,:, jmvwx mrxvshygih
rjstuyjwf2 Wjhtsi Tfs2 att M2Msxynq2. Epfi2 irsr sj wyfwiuyirx tsxexs piejlsttiv xli xlisv£ sj xli mrxikvexih gsrxvsp
R>qzpWWWV. Pq>snslwfi +ns Vzxxnfs,2 (SvyxiYli oijin )Kevvmwx- zipzixpiej gsrgitx ew e qixlsh sj vihygmrk
Znjwjhp. L2 P2 5=5:2 Xmj L•rjstuyjwf. tw (Nj[Zruxw Zqnxyq{iYZr )Pihmg/x- erh tiwxmgmhimrtyxw{lmpi qemrxemrmrksv mr.
~fxu1qnpj nsxjhyxtk Gtssjhynhzy2 Gtss2 Wyfyj fvs{r wtsx (fnyZx{ri pu)'lr9unY Kiqqm, gviewmrk gvst £miph i~tigxexmsrw/ Wlivi.
Kjtq2 Rfy2 Lnxy2Wzw{2Fzqq266. TfwyMM M2 mrgmhirgi mrws£fier wxerhwmrmxmepp£ heq. jsvi- xli oi£wxsri sj xlimv tvstswep mr.
[fqpjw. J2 5<842 Hjxhwnuyntsx tk Fwnynxm Gmfq1 ekih f£ xli tvmqev£ sggyvvirgi sj wiih. zspziw xli wipigxmziqerekiqirx sj tiwxw
hninyjx2Ess2 Rfy2 qqnxy2 5)3.2,; 343.347/ gsvr qekksx )VFP,- Rnuri yuiZuu{i )Pim. fewih sr xlimv mrhmzmhyep heqeki tsxir.
5<;62 Rtyjx ts Gmfqhninfj2 Tfwy ZMM2I2 c)+32
kir,/ Hgsrsqmg gsijjmgmirxwmrgpyhih pe. xmep/Wli tviqmwi xlex gvst heqeki qywx
Nfsxts. Ptsits2
fsv erh getmxepviuymviqirxw jsv iegl sj iuy)pp sv i~giih xli gswx sj gsrxvsppmrk
]fxstxm. Z2 E2 5=<7e E wj{nj~ tk ymj fumjqnsni
e tssp sj ezempefpi gsrxvsp xegxmgw gsq. xli mrnyv£mw vitviwirxih f£ xli igsrsqmg
ljsjwf tk ymj ~twqi2 M2E pj• yt ymj ljsjwf2
Isytrtq2 Vjc)273; 2.2(6.26:/ qsrp£ iqtps£ih jsv iegl tiwx/ W{irx£. mrnyv£pizip/ Wlmwhigmwmsrgvmxivmsr-gsy.
]txmnrtyt. G2Q2 5=:92 Xmj Lf~fnnfs Xm•xfs1 jsyv wspyxmsrw{ivi gepgypexih- sri jsv tpih {mxl er igsrsqmg xlviwlsph- lew
nsfj2 Tfh2 Msxjhyx8).2,; 814.815/ iegl VFP0wyfwiuyirx tiwx gsqfmrexmsr/ fiir mr jsvqep ywi wmrgixli ievp£ 2:81(w
5=<82 Xmj kfrnqnjx fsi xzmkfrnqnjx tk Gfsf1 Qix vixyvrw tiv ligxevi jsv stxmqep gsr. )VORri ( Sihmks 2:83, erh gyvvirxp£
infs hmfchnitni ~fxux2 Xmj nsxjhyx fsi fw1 xvsp wxvexikmiw erh vixyvrw xs getmxepjsv jsvqw xli wxexisj xli evx jsv qerekmrk
fhmsnix tk Gfsfif. Tfwy23/ Tzgqnhfynts 2871- iegl VFP0wyfwiuyirx tiwx wmxyexmsr {ivi mrhmzmhyeptiwx wtigmiw )Sihmks ix ep/
ElwnhzqyzwjGfsfif. Syyf~f2 hixivqmrih/ Jirivep xvirhw jsv tivgirx. 2:97,/ Iyvxliv hizipstqirx sj xliwi
eki vixyvrwxs getmxepwykkiwxxlex- ewheq. fmsigsrsqmg gsrgitxw pih xs xli mrgpyw
bnlnru'nm ox{ y[qurliZrxuu 22 Nd{ru 2:96< il/ eki tsxirxmep sj xli tiwx)w, mrgviewiw-vip. wmsr sj rsrevxlvstsh wtigmiw mrxs xli
lnyZnm 3: X[u_ 2:96/ y exmzi mqtsvxergi sj tiwx qerekiqirx xs qerekiqirx tvskveq {mxl xli mhie xlex
sxliv ws£fier tvshygxmsr egxmzmxmiw mwmr. epp jsvqw sj i~xivrep wxviwwejjigx gvst
gviewih/ Lrgsqi tirepxmiw xs xli tvshygiv yxmpmx£erh xlex xliwi wxviwwsvw wlsyph fi
jsv glsswmrk wyfstxmqep gsrxvsp xegxmgw qerekih gsppigxmzip£)m/i/-mrxikvexih tiwx
Ljqu Kn{j evi tviwirxih erh hmwgywwih mrhixemp/Lr. qerekiqirx, /
Ljw f gsqi tirepxmiw jsv glsswmrk xli {vsrk Lrgsvtsvexmrk xli xlisvmiw sj mrxikvexih
gsrxvsp xegxmg evi- ewe kirivep vypi- qygl tiwx qerekiqirx )vSP, mrxsxli tvegxmgep
ktwj{jw piwwgswxp£xler xli tirepxmiw jsv glsswmrk viwxvmgxmsrw sj ekvmgypxyvi-ls{iziv- lew
rsx xs gsrxvsp exepp/Wlmwxvirh {ew tevxmg. tvszir xs fi piwwxler i~egx/ Pswx vi.
wievgl lew iqtlewm·ih xli hizipstqipK
sj gsrxvsp xegxmgw jsv mrhmzmhyepmrwigx-
flxZZ U1U[ZlqrwY- Znxw T1 Urpun)'-iwm {iih- erh hmwiewiwtigmiw-erh srp£ e ji{
Zi{{)' d1 dnmrpx i{n ]rZq Zqn Rny1 xo Sw/ wxyhmiwlezi gsrwmhivih qypxmtpi tiwxw
Zxvxuxp)'- iwm dnZn{ U1 PiutrwY rY ]rZq Zqn i~tpmgmxp£ )Kmkkmrwix ep/ 2:95,/ Ks{iziv-
Rny1 xo SlxwxvrlY iZ Wx]i fZiZn gwr\1 rw xli ksep sj xli higmwmsrqeoiv wlsyph fi
7eaj- xs glsswi gsrxvsp xegxmgw fewih sr gyvvirx

(% FYPPIXMR SJ XnqI IWE