( aliv ) 
his Cynips psenes—without a word of comment; referring to the numbers 
and pages of the ‘Iter’ as mutually applicable, and thereby giving the 
sanction of his authority to a corresponding oviduct in each! 
This metamorphosis involved a further complication at a later period: 
the C. carice had disappeared—no species having a similar oviduct was to 
be found ;—the C. sycomori, marked as such by Linneus, was there; but 
the few specimens thus authenticated were in a mutilated condition, reft of 
antenne ; while others, mounted in like manner and in better preservation, 
though bearing no name, were contiguous thereto: what could these be? 
Could they represent the C. psenes of Linneus? Certainly not, for where 
was the oviduct double the length of the body? On the contrary, theirs 
was very short! No other species had been recorded—and why were these 
left unnamed, unless duplicates of the C. sycomori? Their oviduct might 
have been overrated before; its precise dimensions to be ascertained by sub- 
sequent measurement; whereby its relative proportions became eventually 
reducible to about half the length of the abdomen (abdominis dimidii fere 
longitudine). So also the peculiar characters of the trophi and antenne— 
generically identical with the Blastophaga of Gravenhorst—were attributed 
to C. sycomori. Thus Linneus, after having been inveigled into a miscon- 
ception by Hasselquist, became himself a decoy for others! 
Apart, however, from any circumstances attending such mistaken 
identity (which the President observed were quite intelligible), the C. ficus, 
hitherto playing a false part under a feigned name, must now be permitted 
to resume her appropriate rank and title as a true Blastophaga, on whose 
distinctive characters, illustrated in our ‘Transactions’ forty years ago, 
Professor Westwood lavished all his artistic talents and exquisite precision 
of detail— 
* Nihil non tetigit— 
Nihil quod tetigit non ornavit !” 
On the other hand, the C. sycomori, superseded in her pretentions as 
aforesaid, has yet to reveal her natural affinities in relinquishing her 
generic pseudonym. The absence of mandibular appendages, as now 
ascertained by Mr. Waterhouse, coupled with a close resemblance in the 
oviduct to that of the genus Sycophaga—figured and described by Prof. 
Westwood on the same occasion—would seem to point to an intimate 
alliance therewith. The antenne (unfortunately wanting in the types of 
the former) are described by Hasselquist as “clavate, verticis medio insert, 
approximate, capite duplo fere longiores”; thereby coinciding also with 
those of Sycophaga; but Linneus, in giving an independent description 
thereof, defines them as “subulate.” It would seem difficult to reconcile 
these conflicting characters assigned to the self-same types; although, as 
Mr. Waterhouse has noticed, these organs assume a different aspect towards 
the apex when viewed from above. The habitat of Sycophaga crassipes, 
