( ix ) 



Papers read, <&c. 



Mr. J. B. Bridgman communicated some " Further Additions to Mr. 

 Marshall's Catalogue of British IchneimioiddcB." Sixty-seven species were 

 added to the British fauna, ten of which were new to Science. 



Mr. E. Saunders read a continuation of his " Synopsis of British 

 Hymenoptera." The Diploptera and Anthophila to the end of the AndrenidcB 

 were now treated of. Since Smith's 1871 catalogue three Diploptera had 

 been added to our list, and eleven Anthophila ; while, on the other hand, 

 twenty-three species of Anthophila included by Smith were rejected for 

 various reasons stated. 



Prof. J. 0. Westwood communicated a memoir " On the supposed 

 abnormal habits of certain species of Eurytomides, a group of the hymen- 

 opterous family Chalcidida.'' A general resume of the life-history. notices 

 of the EurytomidcB was given ; and Prof. Westwood inclined to the belief 

 expressed by Harris, Fitch, and Walsh in America that certain species 

 were phytophagous ; thus having phytophagous and sarcophagous species 

 included in one family, or even genus. Two new species, Isosoma orchid- 

 earum, bred from Cattleyia buds, and Eurytoma Taprohanica, bred from the 

 galls on Ficus Tjiela of Ceylon, were described and figured. 



Mr. E. A. Fitch could not concur in the belief that any of the Eury- 

 tomidcB were of phytophagous habits, since he had bred many hundreds of 

 specimens belonging to various species from twenty-seven distinct hymen- 

 opterous and dipterous galls, in all of which they were undoubtedly parasitic. 

 He especially referred to Dr. Giraud's and Dr. Mayr's papers in the Vienna 

 ' Verhandlungen ' (vol. xiii. pp. 1250-1296, and vol. xxviii. pp. 297-334), 

 The evidence of phytophagism seemed to rest on the "joint-worm" {Eury- 

 toma hordei, Harris) of America, and on Isosoma hyalipennis, Walk., or 

 I. longipennis, Walk., a species bred from galls on Triticiim in this country. 

 He had bred some scores of this latter insect, but believed it to be parasitic 

 on a dipterous gall-maker, either an Ochthiphila, as stated by Giraud, or a 

 LonchcBa, as stated by Perris. On comparing these twitch-galls with the 

 reed-galls produced by Lipara lucens, Meig. (specimens of both being 

 exhibited), from their analogous structure it seemed fair to conclude that 

 our Triticum gall was produced by one of the MuscidtB. E. hordei is also 

 more probablj a parasite of some Muscid allied to Chlorops; in both cases 

 the parasite being far more frequently bred than its host. Mr. Fitch 

 exhibited numerous specimens of the galls of Lipara similis, Schiner, of 

 L. lucens, Meig., and of L. tomentosa, Macq., on Phragmites, received from 

 Dr. G. L. Mayr ; also a quantity of the galls on Triticum collected at Maldon, 

 Essex, and similar galls on Ammophila arundinacea collected at Saltburn, 

 N. Yorks., and near Conway and Llandudno, N. Wales, by Mr. P. Inchbald ; 



c 



