June, 08] journal of economic entomology 237 



Contarinia setigera Lintn. was bred a number of years ago by the 

 late Doctor Lintner, from shoots of mnsk melon, the young leaves of 

 which had been transformed into a small, irregular, subovate, downy 

 gall, presumably made by this insect. 



Contarinia negundifolia Felt j\IS. was reared from the leaves of box 

 elder, Negundo aceroides, collected in Virginia by JNIr. Theodore Per- 

 gande May 12, 1884. Mr. Pergande states that the larvae deserted 

 the galls May 15 and entered the ground, remaining there until the 

 following spring. It is possible that this last named species may prove 

 to be identical with Cecidomyia negundims Gill., a species which has 

 been recorded by Professor Gillette as being quite injurious to box 

 elder trees on the college campus at Ames, Iowa. It has been im- 

 possible up to the present to obtain for comparison specimens of the 

 last named form. 



There are several other American species referable to this genus, 

 some with unknown habits. Contarinia perfoliata Felt MS. was bred 

 in August, 1907, from the florets of thoroughwort, Eupatorium per- 

 foliatiim. Another undescribed species, Contarinia quercifolia Felt 

 MS., has been reared from oak, presumably in connection with a Cyn- 

 ipid gall, though we have no exact record in respect to the same. Con- 

 tarinia agrimoniae Felt was reared in September, 1907, from yellow- 

 ish larvse in the florets of Agrimonia eupatoria taken at Bath, N. Y. 

 Contarinia virginianiae Felt, originally described as Cecidomyia, was 

 bred June 1 by Dr. James Fletcher, from the deformed fruit of 

 Prunus virginiana. Another undescribed species, Contarinia clem- 

 atidis Felt MS., has been reared from an irregular subglobular gall 

 taken on clematis at Newport, N. Y., July 24. 1907. 



The above shows that members of the genus Contarinia, as at pres- 

 ent restricted, display a marked preference for florets, fruits or buds, 

 C. liriodendri and C. ananassi being marked exceptions thereto, though 

 the latter is more apparent than real, since the gall appears to be de- 

 veloped from the rapidly growing, more tender portion of the twig, 

 which is consequent^ allied to floral and bud tissues noted above. 

 There seems to be no rule as to the number of generations produced 

 annually by members of this genus. A few forms at least breed 

 throughout the season, while others, apparently limited by conditions 

 presented by the food plant, have but one generation annually. This 

 limitation of the number of generations by conditions of the food plant 

 agrees with observations made upon better known species of the group, 

 such as Mayetiola destructor Say. 



