June 29, 1883.] 



SCIENCJE. 



599 



skeleton of the Long-Island specimens, and gives 

 measurements and details of the external characters 

 and osteology, all of the highest importance ; our 

 only regret being that he did not, respecting some 

 points, make fuller use of his opportunities. We wish 

 we could speak with equal satisfaction of the his- 

 torical portion of his paper, comprising one-half of 

 his text. Besides numerous outrageous typographical 

 errors (a part of which, however, are corrected on 

 an errata slip), relating to proper names and titles 

 of works ( ' Researches ' and ' Reserches ' for ' Re- 

 cherches,' 'Seibold' for 'Siebold,' 'Van Benedin ' 

 for 'Van Beueden,' both the latter in repeated in- 

 stances, and various others of like character, are 

 among those still uncorrected), there are errors of 

 statement of so grave a character as to require 

 notice. It would seem, for instance, that only the 

 merest novice in cetology could have been misled 

 into supposing that the quotation given at p. 114, 

 respecting a whale captured far up the St. Lawrence 

 River in August, 1871, and reported as ' Balaena 

 mysticetus,' was any thing but a rorqual or fin- 

 back whale (in all probability, Balaenoptera mus- 

 culus), much less into an attempt to explain away 

 the evident discrepancies to make it referable to the 

 North Atlantic right whale; yet we find our author 

 devoting several pages to an attempt at this absurd- 

 ity. Again: in the strictures passed upon Scoresby 

 (pp. 121, 122), he informs us that " his [Scoresby's] 

 inability to portray the subject pictorially was a 

 misfortune," and that "he furnished to science an 

 incorrect figure, at second hand," of the B. mysti- 

 cetus, and considers it 'deplorable' that "nearly 

 every book published to this day, having an illustra- 

 tion of B. mysticetus, shows a manifest copy of 

 Scoresby's figure." That it was the best figure, if 

 not quite correct in all points, of the species down to 

 1874, when Scammon's admirable illustration was 

 published, lias, I think, hitherto been unquestioned ; 

 and if our author has evidence that Scoresby's 

 figure (or rather figures, for he gives two) was not 

 original, its presentation would be undoubtedly 

 a revelation to cetologists. That our critic of 

 Scoresby is none too familiar with Scoresby's ceto- 

 logical writings is evident from his statement, that 

 Godman (p. 129) " gives a lengthy account of the 

 mysticetus, with an amount of anatomical and physi- 

 ological knowledge of the subject quite vmusual;" 

 the fact being, that Godman's account is an unac- 

 credited compilation from Scoresby, whole pages 

 being taken entire, and without change, from Scores- 

 by's work, particularly in his notice of the whale- 

 fishery. Bachstrom's figure, published by Lac^pede 

 as representing the nordcaper, and which is accepted 

 by Dr. Holder as such, recent eminent authorities 

 have unreservedly referred to B. mysticetus; yet 

 on its interpretation as a representation of the 

 nordcaper rests much of Dr. Holder's criticism of 

 Scoresby. We are surprised to see no reference to 

 the various recent original memoirs relating to the 

 so-called B. biscayensis, either in the author's formal 

 notice of the ' Right whale of Europe ' or in the 

 bibliography of the general subject given at the end 

 of the paper. In ' the list of works referred to ' 

 the uncorrected errata are numerous; 'J. C. Gray' 

 (four times repeated), for example, standing for 

 'J. E. Gray,' 'Col. Hamilton' (also on p. 129) for 

 'W. Jardine," etc., while there are also inaccuracies 

 of dates. While, as above said, Dr. Holder gives us 

 valuable information about the external appearance 

 and osteology of the North Atlantic right whale, 

 his historical resume is seriously defective and mis- 

 leading. J. A. Allen. 



FIG-INSECTS. 



Few insects offer more remarkable structural pe- 

 culiarities, or have more puzzled systematists, than the 

 minute Hymenoptera associated with the caprification 

 of figs. Part I. of the transactions of the London 

 entomological society for 1883 opens with a very in- 

 teresting illustrated paper by Sir Sidney S. Saunders, 

 descriptive of fig-insects allied to Blastophaga from 

 Calcutta, Australia, and Madagascar, with notes on 

 their parasites and on the aflSnities of their respective 

 races. 



It is chiefly as a contribution to the discussion of 

 the affinities of these insects that Mr. Saunders's 

 paper possesses so great an interest. In the trans- 

 actions for last year, Westwood, by certain authorita- 

 tive statements, appeared to settle the place of the 

 fig-insects (at least, for the genus Sycophaga) as 

 among the Chalcididae, and not far from Callimome. 

 He remarks, "The structure of these fig-insects, es- 

 pecially as shown in the females (whose character 

 must be shown as more truly normal than that of the 

 males), recedes so entirely from that of the Cyni- 

 pidae that we cannot for a moment adopt the sugges- 

 tion that the fig-insects are Cynipidae. . . . Hence 

 M. Coquerel had no hesitation, in describing the 

 female of one of his fig-insects, to give it the name 

 of Chalcis? explorator; and it is impossible to com- 

 pare his figure of that insect, or mine of Sycophaga 

 crassipes, with a female Callimome, and not be con- 

 vinced that the fig species are most closely related to 

 Callimome (many of the species of which are para- 

 sitic upon the gall-making Cynipidae). The structure 

 of the antennae (even to the minute articulations 

 following the second joint), the fusion of the three 

 terminal joints of these organs, the structure of the 

 wings and wing-veins, and the long exserted oviposi- 

 tor, sufiiciently prove tliat these insects must be 

 placed in the great family Chalcididae." 



Mr. Saunders differs from Westwood in these con- 

 clusions, showing that the place of the whole group 

 must not be considered in so sweejiing a manner. 

 He disposes of the relationship of the group to Cal- 

 limome by the following points : 1. The minute ar- 

 ticulations in the antennae of the female Sycophaga 

 do not correspond with any in the same sex of Cal- 

 limome, nordo they occur in Blastophaga, the antennae 

 of which also differ in other respects from Callimome. 

 2. The fusion of the three terminal joints, while 

 found in Sycophaga, does not occur with Eupristina 

 nor with Agaon. 3. The wing-veins differ inter se 

 among the fig-insects, and Callimome does not coin- 

 cide with Eupristina in this respect; moreover, the 

 wings are invariably absent in the males of the fig- 

 insects. 4. The ovipositor of fig-insects varies in 

 length, and always maintains an arcuate position. 

 The argument which Westwood brought up in a later 

 paper, of the similarity of the dentate genital claspei-s 

 of Sycophaga to those of Platymesopus and other 

 Chalcids, Saunders disposes of by saying that this 

 character can have no tribal value, as it is found 

 alike in Sycophaga and several of its parasitic asso- 

 ciates; moreover, this character is not present in 

 Callimome. 



Mr. Saunders's final conclusion is, that this anoma- 

 lous group which he calls Sycophagides should be 

 placed under the Cynipidae in the following man- 

 ner: — 



1. Prionastomata. — Blastophaga Grav., Agaon 

 Dalm., Sycocrypta Coquerel, Eupristina S. Saund., 

 Pleistodonta S. Saund., Kradibia S. Saund. 



2. Aploastomata. — Sycophaga Westw., Apocrypta 

 Coq. C, V. Riley. 



