OF WASHINGTON. 363 



I present the facts recorded, however, not as an actual solution 

 of the question, but in the hope of drawing the attention of ento 

 mologists to the subject, and inducing those on the Pacific coast 

 who have the opportunity to try to settle the question, which can 

 be easily done by watching the oviposition of Megastigmus or by 

 tracing the different stages of the larva. I will simply venture 

 the opinion that, however much it may conflict with the unity of 

 habit in the same genus, I see nothing at all improbable in this 

 diversity of habit, since we already know that the phytophagic 

 and entomophagic habits obtain in very closely allied genera in 

 the same family. 



In discussing this paper Mr. Howard stated that it was his 

 opinion that the phytophagic habit of Megastigmus was not proved 

 even by this strong evidence. The case of the Danish fir seeds 

 he thought to be simply a very complete instance of parasitism 

 comparable to many which Prof. Riley himself must have wit 

 nessed, and considered that the very fact that the following year 

 the seeds were perfectly healthy and the destroyer could not be 

 found was almost a certain proof that the insects appearing in 

 such large numbers were parasites and not plant feeders in other 

 words, that the true plant feeders had been almost completely 

 killed off. With regard to the observation as to the actual feed 

 ing of the torymine larva? upon the germ of the Oregon seed, 

 Dr. Borries himself gives the proper explanation, that this only 

 occurs after the host larva has been completely devoured. The 

 fact that a single Dipteron was reared from these seeds is signifi 

 cant, as well as the statement that the previous year the seeds were 

 44 destroyed by a worm." There is no indication that the worm 

 of the previous year was a Megastigmus larva, and the presump 

 tion is that it was not. He mentioned the cases of Eurytoma 

 funebre and Tanaostigma coursetice as two instances where his 

 own careful dissections had failed to show any sign of a host larva 

 at first, and only some time later was the true host discovered. 

 In both of these instances he considered the proof of the phyto 

 phagic habit as strong as that adduced by Wachtl and as strong 

 as that of the second case mentioned by Borries, yet it is now 

 known that the first of these parasites feeds upon Cecidomyia 

 leguminicola and the second upon a small Curculionid larva. 

 He stated that where an observation so distinctly negatives every- 



