( xii ) 
to be that of Linneeus. I have compared it with his handwriting, and the 
form of the capital S and other letters agree very well. It is not Hassel- 
quist’s, because he writes Sycomori ‘Cycomori.’ The locality ‘ex Cairo’ 
would agree with Egypt, assigned to the species by Hasselquist, and as he 
states that he captured the Cynips ficus in April, 1750, I think we may 
fairly conclude that this is the date written on the paper, and that these 
specimens were received by Linneeus from Hasselquist. 
“ Now with regard to the second species. Of this there are numerous 
specimens on the rice-paper, besides some unmounted ones wrapped in a 
separate paper. These agree with Hasselquist’s Cynips ficus (Iter Palest. 
p- 424), but they are not labelled in any way whatever. They clearly, how- 
ever, belong to the same series as the Sycomori. These specimens are 
pitchy red; some paler, some darker; the antenne are paler in colour 
than the head, but are darker at the apex than at the base. The whole 
under side of the insect, the legs, and the aculeus are pale pitchy testaceous ; 
the claws are pale pitchy. This insect closely resembles a specimen which 
was sent to me by Sir Sidney Saunders as Blastophaga yrossorum, Grav., 
but it is much paler in colour, with no geneous tint about it, and the head is 
slightly narrower than in B. grossorum. 
“With regard to Cynips carice, Hasselquist (Iter Palest., p. 425), it 
should be noticed that he says the aculeus is twice the length of the body. He 
says nothing of the length of the aculeus in C. jicus; but as he particularly 
points out the length of the aculeus in C. caric@ as a character by which to 
distinguish it from C. ficus, we may conclude that it is short in this latter 
species, as we find it in the Linnean specimens. The C. jicus and C. carica, 
united under the name of C. psenes by Linneus, must certainly, therefore, 
be considered distinct species. 
“Tt now only remains for me to point out that by some singular 
misfortune Prof. Westwood (Trans. Ent. Soc., ii., 1837, p. 220, pl. xx., f. 4) 
has described and figured C. ficus under the name blastophaga sycomori, 
stating that he took his description from the Linnean specimens. How 
this occurred it is impossible now to say. But in all probability he took 
the specimens on both pieces of rice-paper to belong to the same species. 
* Since the above was written Sir S. Saunders has shown me specimens 
of Sycophaga crassipes, Westw. (Trans. Ent. Soc., i., 1837, p. 222, pl. xx., 
f. 5), and I at once recognise them as identical with the true Cynips 
sycomori, Hasselq.” 
In reply Sir Sidney Saunders remarked that we were much indebted to 
Mr. Waterhouse for his careful investigation of the Linnean Cynipide, 
showing that the Cynips ficus had been unwittingly confounded with the 
C. sycomori. He thought, however, that this circumstance might be 
reasonably ascribed to certain anterior complications, whereby Linneus 
had been deluded in the first instance. ‘To elucidate this transformation 
