87 



older larvre in the nearly empty shells of the pupoe were whitish in 

 color. That all of these larva^^ are of the parasite mentioned above 

 can not l)e definitely said. Dr. Howard, who examined the material 

 with the writer, is of the belief that the primary parasite will prove 

 to be Iloinalotyiiis ohseurus How. , the common coccinellid parasite of 

 this country. If the parasite bred proves to be a true secondary para- 

 site, as believed, its presence in such numbers in the pupae of Chilocorus 

 is a matter for gratification. If, on the contrary, it be a primary 

 parasite, it seriousl}^ threatens the success of the imported Chilocorus 

 and all allied lad3'birds. The status of this parasite is given in the 

 appended note by Dr. Howard: 



All of the Tetrastichinas known and whose exact host relations have been deter- 

 mined are hyperparasites. Syntomosphyrum esurns Kiley has never been proved to be 

 either secondary or primary. It is or was a common parasite of Aletia argillacea in 

 the cotton fields of the South late in the summer. It issued frequently and in great 

 numbers from old chrysalids left hanging bare upon the cotton stalks. The chrysa- 

 lids on being opened were found full of this parasite, and no trace of a primary parasite 

 was ever found. Hence this insect was considered in Bulletin 3 of the United States 

 Entomological Commission, and in the Report on Cotton Insects, by J. H. Comstock, 

 published by the Department of Agriculture in 1879, to be a i)rimary parasite. The 

 question as to whether it might not be a secondary parasite was raised by me in the 

 Fourth Report of the United States Entomological Commission. It was reared, as 

 recorded in Bulletin 5 (Technical Series), of this Division, by Dr. A. D. HopkinSj at 

 Morgan town, W. Va., from Orgyta leucosiigma. It was reared abundantly in 1896, in 

 the late winter and early spring, at Washington, D. C, from the chrysalids of 

 Hyphaniria cunea. Moreover, it was reared by F. M. Webster, in 1889, on May 3, 

 according to the notes of the Division, from the galls of Trypeta gibba Loew on AmbrosUi 

 artemisiiefolia. But these Trypeta galls, especially late in the season, are apt to con- 

 tain several different kinds of insects, not only primary parasites, but frequently 

 lepidopterous, coleojiterous, and dipterous larva^, so that the rearing from the gall 

 means nothing at all; the presumption, however, being that the insect came from 

 the Trypeta either as a primary or a secondary parasite. 



Summing this evidence all up, we have the insect reared undoubtedly from lepi- 

 dopterous chrysalids and from coleopterous chrysalids — that is to say, the Coccinel- 

 lids under consideration — and also possibly from dipterous insects. Unity of habit — 

 that is to say, unity of host relation — is so marked among the Chalcididfe that wher- 

 ever such a diversity in the apparent hosts occurs it has become my rule to place 

 such parasites as undoubtedly secondary or tertiary parasites. The primary para- 

 sites of a given group of insects belong to certain definite groups. Examples are so 

 numerous that they need not be mentioned. In no case in the whole family, to my 

 knowledge, are the parasites of a single genus parasitic upon more than one order of 

 hosts, and in some instances they are confined even to individual families of hosts, 

 and the assumption that a single species of Chalcidid may be reared from Coleoptera, 

 from Lepidoptera, as well as jjossibly from Diptera, is almost an absurdity. These 

 are the principal reasons upon which I base my belief that Syntomosphyrum emms 

 is a hyperparasite. 



After the reading of these papers they were opened for discussion. 



Mr, Webster commented on the value of what Mr. Marlatt had 



accomplished, and felt that the least the Association could do was to 



