G6 CURRANT. 



application to Mr. E. A. Fitch, of Maldon, Essex (late Hon. Sec. of 

 the Entomological Society), who I was aware had given especial 

 attention to the subject of parasitic Hymenoptera, he wrote me that 

 the little Chalcids were a species ofEntedon, of which about 165 species 

 were noted as English in the British Museum Catalogues. Under these 

 circumstances Mr. Fitch remarked : — " All I can say is that they are 

 species of Entcdon, or Kntedonidce. These are known parasites of 

 dipterous leaf-miners especially. They are doubtless attached 

 to the dipterous maggots in the Currant buds, in Mr. Gibbon's 

 case, and I think hardly could have been parasitic on the Phy- 

 toj)ti." 



With regard to which division of the Diptera the specimens sub- 

 mitted to me in larval state belonged, I cannot state with certainty, 

 excepting that there was neither distinct head nor any anchor-process 

 visible, and consequently the statement in the elaborate treatise by 

 Mr. L. 0. Howard on the Chaleidida, that Entedon has been found to 

 be parasitic on Musca, may bear on the question.* With regard to 

 possibility of the maggots of these Chalcids feeding within the gall, 

 that is, being phytophacjous, or vegetable feeders, which is a very impor- 

 tant consideration, I find in Mr. L. 0. Howard's work above quoted (at 

 p. 586, 20th page of pamphlet), the following sentence concluding some 

 elaborate detailed considerations of the subject : — " Phytophayic Chal- 

 cididcB are therefore confined to Isosoma, and Isosoma-\ike forms among 

 the EurytomiiicB." And if we turn now to the " Generic Synopsis " of 

 the ' Classification of Insects ' by our own great authority. Prof. 

 Westwood, we find Isosoma and Eurytoma placed in the Sub-family of 

 Enrytomides. Entedonis in another Sub-family, that of the Euhphides, 

 and consequently it appears clear that these four-winged flies do not 

 add to our troubles by feeding in maggot state on the Currant growths, 

 but are probably feeding on the fly-maggots. 



Thus, as far as we see at present, it appears that we should get no 

 good by endeavouring to rear these Chalcid flies. We have no reason 

 to suppose they feed in maggot state on the Phytopti, and every reason 

 to suppose they feed on the fly-maggots. The point of their usefulness 

 turns upon what the fly-maggots may be doing. If these fly-maggots 

 are feeding on the Phytopti, these numerous Chalcids which destroy 

 our benefactors had certainly best 7iot be allowed to develop ; that is, 

 when the galls are broken from the Currant shoots, these galls ought 

 to be destroyed. If, on the contrary, the fly-maggots prove to be adding 

 to the mischief by feeding in the galls, and not on the Phytopti, the 

 Chalcids would to a certain extent be doing good by destroying them. 



* See 'Biology of the Hymenopterous insects of the family Chalcididce,' by L, 

 0. Howard. From Proceedings of United States National Museum, vol. XIV. 

 Washington : Government Printing Office, 1892. 



