1865.] 369 



he had obtained from the gall of G.forticorrm (called C. q. Jicus by 

 Fitch), took it to be identical with the specimens of St/nergus Iseviven- 

 tris, which he bred from the gall of C. spongifica. But I agree with 

 this author in thinking that the specimens which he bred from the gall 

 of C. forticornis are the Cynips q. Jicus of Fitch, the latter author 

 having in this case, as in several others, mistaken the guest-gall-fly for 

 the gall-producer. This insect has, in accordance with Dr. Fitch's 

 statements, 13-jointed 9 antennae, the hind tibia? dusky, the head partly 

 yellowish or reddish, etc. 



•2. Ceroptres petiolicola 0. S. % 9 • 



Syn. Amblynotus? petiolicola 0. S. Proc. Ent. Sic. Phil. I. p. 67. 



Amblynotus ensigcr Walsh (?), Proc. etc. II, p. 496. 

 Bred from the gall of C. petiolicola Bassctt. Since the above men- 

 tioned description of mine, which was based on one or two specimens 

 only, I have reared two more specimens from the same gall, a % and a 

 9 . The male has the middle and hind femora and tibiae dusky, and a 

 black line on the upper side of the fore-femora. The 9 has apparently 

 13-jointed antennae and infuscated femora. These differences from 

 Ceroptres (Amblynotus) ensiger Walsh (Proc. Ent. Soc. II, p. 496), 

 notwithstanding. I incline to believe, with Mr. Walsh, that his species 

 is identical with mine. The twelfth antenna! joint of the 9 (which is 

 the last, according to Mr. Walsh's opinion,) may, in some specimens, 

 show a more distinct suture and be counted for two joints. As to the 

 difference in size and in the coloring of the feet, they seem to be very 

 variable, as we will see. for instance, in the species reared from the 

 gall of Cynips q. batatus. 



3. Ceroptres inermis "Walsh. 



Syn. Amblynotus inermis "Walsh, Proc. etc. II, p. 49S. 



Beared from the same author's gall Q. pilulse, and unknown to me. 

 This gall being that of a Cccidomyia and not of a Cynips, it is a re- 

 markable and heretofore unique instance of a guest-fly inhabiting the 

 gall of a dipterous insect. The differences between C. inermis and C. 

 ensiger are explained by the author, 1. c. 



4. Ceroptres pisum 0. S. 



Syn. Sarothrus? pisum 0. S., Proc. etc. I, p. 59. 



In my description T have erroneously stated that my specimen is a male 

 and that it has 14-jointed antennae; and in this case again, deceived by 

 the transverse line dividing the second segment, I was induced to think 

 that this insect belongs to the Figitidse. That Cynips q. pisum Fitch is 

 not the gall-fly of the gall described by Dr. Fitch, Bep. II, No. 319, but a 

 guest-fly, seems certain, since the discovery of C. pezomachoides 0. S. 



