INSECTS BRED FROM CYNIPS KOLLARI GALLS. PANE 
these are Curtis’s and Haliday’s species, unacknowledged on the 
Continent). The species of Mesochorus are certainly hyper- 
parasitic even on different orders, though often apparently bred 
from Lepidoptera. It is also recorded, and has been observed in 
this country, that they are external parasites on various insects. 
See an interesting note on three species of this genus by Mr. 
Bignell in the last number (Entom. xiii. 245). 
Thersilochus saltator, Fab.—Mr. Billups bred two males of 
this little Ichneumon. Species of Porizon, from which Thersi- 
lochus was separated by Holmgren, are frequently bred from 
galls; especially P. harpurus from the rose bedeguar (gall of 
Rhodites rose), and less commonly P. claviventris from the oak- 
galls of D. scutellaris. Ratzeburg gives certain species as 
coleopterous parasites, and Dr. Giraud bred T’. saltator from 
Tischeria angusticollella. 
T. melanarius, Holmgr.—Mr. Billups also bred one female of 
this small species. 
Mesoleius sanguinicollis, Gy. Mr. Weston bred one specimen. 
I bred three in July, 1879; curiously this is the only Ichneumon 
I bred from some hundreds of galls collected in the autumn 
of 1878. Ratzeburg received the females of this species bred 
from Nematus galls on willows by Herr Brischke, and Vollen- 
hoven saw a specimen emerge from similar galls on sallow. 
Brischke, in his later work, says “Aus grunen Nematus-larven 
erzogen.” Giraud bred it from Nematus salicis, but also from his 
reed insects (Cemonus wnicolor and Lipara lucens), and gives it, 
but doubtless erroneously, as a parasite of the Cemonus. In our 
case it was probably parasitic, like the other Mesoleti, on Harpi- 
phorus lepidus ; but I have not yet met with the sawfly. This 
Ichneumon is figured in ‘ Pinacographia, "plate 23, fig. 6. 
M. armillatorius, Gr—Mr. Weston also bred one specimen of 
this pretty species. It is known to be parasitic on many 
Tenthredinide. 
Exochus globulipes, Desv.—This species has not again been 
bred, but its determination must be corrected. I did not see 
either of Mr. Weston’s specimens until after my paper was 
published ; they were named by the late Mr. F. Smith. I say 
this because, of course, they were compared with Desvignes’ 
collection, now in the British Museum, and this is another 
instance of the great muddle in which is our National Collection 
21L 
