( xn )) 
ab ovo (so to speak), he mentioned that Hasselquist, in his posthumous 
work, the ‘Iter Palestinum,’ edited by Linneus, described four species of 
Cynips, the last of which—the C. egypti—might be dismissed at once, 
having no connection with this controversy: it was found on the leaves of 
various trees; it was dark green (saturate viridis), half a line long, with 
wings double the length of the body, and a very short oviduct. With 
the other three we had become more or less familiar by Mr. Water- 
house’s instructive diagrams and comments thereon. They were designated 
(1) C. ficus, (2) C. carice, and (3) C. cycomori. But in the diagnosis of 
the first species a remarkable omission occurred which has been the primary 
cause of mistaken identity in the sequel, no allusion being made to the 
relative length of the oviduct, whether long or short. 
In the C. carice he commences with avowing its great similarity to 
CU. ficus,—“ Partes omnes ut in antecedente,’—adding, however, that the 
abdomen was more slender and wider apart from the thorax. He then 
proceeds to define certain supposed structural differences in the oviduct, 
the dimensions of which are here supplied as double the length of the body ; 
while his ideal divergences imply the mere union or disunion of the terebra 
and its demi-sheaths, the former exposed and separate from the latter in 
the one instance, but concealed within the retaining valves and only 
partially perceptible towards the apex of the abdomen in the other. Thus 
in the C. ficus he states, ‘ Alculei (sic) duo sub cauda; superiore longiore, 
crassiore; inferiore breviore, tenuiore;” and, in the C. carice, “ Aculeus 
caudee unicus, corpore duplo longior, capelliaris, versus caudam subtus 
carinatus, crassior, parumque pilosus, reliqua parte tenuis, glaber, equalis. 
Aculeus alius abdomen terminans, minimus, crassiusculus, subrigidus.” He 
then informs us that they were both found in the same fig, “in eadem 
cum altero ficu habitat”; to which he appends a remarkable query as to 
the sex or species of his C. carice, ‘“‘ An preecedens ex altero sexu? an 
diversa species ?” 
No specimen of the latter exists in the Linnean Cabinet, but the length 
of its oviduct must be accepted as correct, considering Hasselquist’s habitual 
precision; for, in expounding that his C. jicus had six legs, he was careful 
to add that three were attached to the thorax on either side—‘ Pedes VL., 
utrinque tres, omnes thoraci affixi.” He was equally explicit as to the 
position of the legs in his C. eycomori! His C. carice may have been a 
solitary example, for he gives no indication to the contrary; whereas the 
C. ficus was found in multitudes, ‘in quovis fere germine unum reconditum.”’ 
At all events Linneeus could never have seen the C. carica, for had he been 
enabled to compare the two he must have recognised a discrepancy in 
the length of their respective oviducts, to which no clue was afforded by 
the text; so that, scarcely confiding in the physiological proficiency of his 
pupil, he comprised both together, in his tenth edition, under a joint name— 
