243 



specimen of a form allied to Oligosita was bred by Koebele. 

 This might be either an egg parasite of the leaf-hopper, or a 

 secondary parasite, the latter, I suspect, being the case. 



Turning to the second division, the hyperparasites or second- 

 ary parasites of leaf-'hoppers, most important of these are the 

 parasites of the Dryinidae. These comprise six distinct genera, 

 Echthrodryimis, Echthrogonatopus, Hclcgonatopus, Chalccriiiys, 

 Cheiloneurus and Saronotum. I have already in Part I of this 

 Bulletin stated the importance of these hyperparasites, in limit- 

 ing the value of the Dryinidae. In the case of the first five 

 genera named above, several individuals (frequently about half 

 a dozen) are bred from a single host, but in the case of Sarono- 

 tum, only a single parasite is .bred at the expense of the Dryinid. 

 This hyperparasite emerges fro'm the Dryinid larva soon after 

 its cocoon is formed, then continues to feed on the body for 

 some days. The others, on the other hand, appear to emerge 

 simultaneously, and full fed, as soon as the cocoon of their host 

 is completed. None of these^ hyperparasites will oviposit in the 

 larva of the Dryinid after the cocoon is formed, but the larva 

 of the latter is stung, while still attached to the leaf-hopper. 



The discovery of parasites on Dryinidae was made by Swezey, 

 Who obtained Chciloncitnis szvcceyi from the cocoons of Dryinus 

 ormenidis in North America. Subsequently from cocoons of the 

 same species sent here by Koebele at least a thousand examples 

 of this hyperparasite were bred. Ashmead on the ground that 

 theoretically Chcilouciinis should be the parasite of some scale- 

 insect, in describing the species remarked that "some mistake 

 has been made" by Swezey, but it is he himself who is mistaken. 

 Chciloncitnis is 'a very common parasite of Dryinidae in Australia 

 as well as in America. C. swcccyi is a particularly interesting 

 species from the fact that the female is dimorphic, being either 

 fully winged or wingless. The latter form far outnumbers the 

 winged in the individuals bred by me, and both were repre- 

 sented in Swezey's few specimens. There is no modification of 

 the thorax in the wingless examples, whic'h, but for the absence 

 of these organs, quite resemble the others, though perhaps they 

 may be of slightly smaller size on the average. We did not dis- 

 cover any wingless examples of the AustraHan species. 



The only other secondary parasite of leaf-hoppers that is 

 known to me, is likewise an Encyrtid, but belongs to the Eupel- 

 minae, w'hile all the others belong to the Encyrtinae. It was 

 bred from the puparium of the parasitic fly, Pipuncnhis cincras- 

 ccns, and is described below as a new species of Anastatus. Only 



