584 BIOLOGY OF THE ClIALClDlD.l-] — HOWARD. 



are the offspriujj of noufecaudated females. (See sectiou on partLeiiO'' 

 genesis.) 



As to the relative time of the issuing of the sexes, it has been my 

 general experience that the males issue before the females and await 

 the appearance of their mates, just as is so often noticed by rearers of 

 Lepidoptera and Coleoptera and as Harrington has sliown in the ich- 

 neumonid genus Thalessa {Canadian Untomologist, November, 1887). A 

 single instance may suffice to illustrate this point. My original breed- 

 ing record of Pentacladia hucctdatrieis shows that May 19 there issued 

 5 ^ , no 5 ; May 20, 7 5,1$; May 21, 3 5 , 8 $ , and May 22, no 5 , 12 9 . 

 So well marked is this that when a new-reared chalcidid is brought to 

 me from a host insect of which there is a plentiful material in our breed- 

 ing cages I anticipate a great preponderance of males, and look for- 

 ward to tlie next day or two to bring a supply of females. With this 

 in view Mr. Scudder's contradictory experience with Pteromalus pupa- 

 rum is strange. He writes {loo. cit.): "In some instances the entire 

 brood would emerge in a single day; at others the bulk would emerge 

 the first day and others would straggle out one after another for a 

 week or more; sometimes again they would come out daily or almost 

 daily for several weeks, as in one instance from February 24 to March 

 14; and in another, the most extended, from March 18 to April 28. 

 Males and females seem to he equally early and late J'' 



Confirmatory of my own experience and contradictory to Mr. Scud- 

 der's is the statement of Adler, in whose extensive rearings of this para- 

 site from the chrysalids Vanessa to, V. polychloros, V. urticce, and Pieris 

 rapoi the males regularly appeared first. 



As so much attention has been given in this section to Pteromalus 

 pupariim, I may advert to Brischke's statement (D. Ichu. d. Prov. West, 

 u. Ost-Preussen, II Fortsetzung, p. 125) that this species, when infest- 

 ing Pieris brassicw, Rhodocera rhamni, Vanessa urtica^, and V. polychloros j 

 is hyperparasitic. There can be no doubt but that this statement is a 

 grave error, and it is inconceivable that a man of Brischke's care could 

 have been responsible for it. I prefer to believe that it was simply a 

 printer's error in underscoring this species. (All species underscored 

 are indicated in a footnote to be parasites of parasites.) 



PHYTOPHAGIO HABIT. 



Ever since Nees v. Esenbeck, in 1834 (Hym. Ichn. Afif., 415), made the 

 statement that his Eurytoma roscc was the maker of the galls on Rosa 

 centifolia, the parasitic or vegetal-feeding habit of certain eurytomines 

 has been under dispute among entomologists. 



Since the ])ublication of Mayr's able paper, " Arten der chalcidier- 

 Gattung Eurytoma," in 1879, there has been no doubt about the habit of 

 the Xeesian species, for it is shown to be a common parasite on the 

 makers of no less than 50 different European cynipid galls. Even as 

 late as 1871, however. Walker (Notes on Ciialcid;e, p. 11) considers 



