3<>S 



[Mat 



it too much importance when he says (Germ. Zeitschr. Ill, p. 343 l 

 that it distinguishes the genus. 



Misled by the impressed line on the second abdominal segment, 

 which is not mentioned anywhere in Hartig, I had previously consid- 

 ered this genus as belenging to the Flgitidse (Proc. Ent. Soc. I, p. 67) 

 and had doubtingly referred it to Amblynotus Hart. I owe the cor- 

 rection of my error to Dr. Reinhard, to whom I communicated two 

 species ; a small one, reared from the gall of C. q. verrucarum, which 

 has slightly incrassated (sub-clavate) antenna?, and a larger one, reared 

 from the gall of C. q. b<it<ttns Fitch, with filiform antennae. The first 

 was returned as Ceroptres; the second was sent back by Br. Reinhard 

 with the following remark: '-This species may also betaken for Cerop- 

 tres; the structure of the abdomen is exactly the same, only the pube- 

 scence at the basis is stronger than usual; a more striking difference is 

 that the antennae are filiform; this might render the generic identity 

 doubtful." It would be hardly prudent, however, to establish a new 

 genus on such slight differences ; the better plan will be to keep the 

 structure of the second abdominal segment in view as the principal 

 character of Ceroptn s. 



I have mentioned the communication of Dr. Reinhard to me about 

 Ceroptres in order to prove that, the discrepancy between Hartig's cha- 

 racters and my specimens notwithstanding, these specimens really be- 

 long to Ceroptres. 



The species of this genus are very difficult to distinguish on ac- 

 count of the great uniformity of the coloring of the body and the 

 apparent inconstancy in their size and the coloring of their feet. The 

 differences in the sculpture of the thorax, which would afford the prin- 

 cipal characters for specific distinction, seem to be very slight here, and 

 for this reason are difficult to describe. I leave, therefore, the task of 

 describing the species to those who will be in possession of more mate- 

 rials, principally obtained by breeding large numbers of specimens from 

 different galls. My present object is merely to point out those among 

 the described N. A. Cj/nipirfse which, according to my opinion, belong 

 to Ceroptres, but in doing so I do not even pretend to decide whether 

 all these species are really distinct, or whether some of them would not 

 be better united. 



1. Ceroptres ficus Fitch. 

 Syn. Ct/nips q. ficus Fitch, Rep. etc. II, No. 314. 



Synophrus Iceviventris Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. II, p. 494. (Exparte.) 



Mr. Walsh, probably deceived by the coloring of this species, which 



