REVISION OF LEUCOSPIDAE 151 



its author stated by mistake that it was a 'mas' (= male). It is undoubtedly the 

 same as our L. gigas, but Westwood gave its origin as North America, for he received 

 it 'with various insects from that country.' Another specimen from 'North America' 

 identified by Westwood as shuckardi is in the MNHU, Berlin and later I saw another 

 female in the MNHN, Paris labelled 'New York'. In spite of this the species is not 

 known to be established in North America and if the labels are right, the specimens 

 must have been introduced from some Mediterranean country. L. shuckardi 

 was synonymized with gigas by Schletterer (1890). 



L. rufonotaia. The apparently single preserved original specimen is designated 

 as lectotype. Synonymized with gigas by Schletterer (1890), which I can confirm. 

 Shipp (1894) refused it and unreasonably proposed synonymy with L. miniata 

 Klug. See also the discussion on the variation below. 



L. costae. I could not locate the type-material and doubt if it still exists. The 

 description suggests that Schletterer was right to synonymize it with L. gigas. 



L. quettaensis. The only original specimen available is designated as lectotype. 

 Cameron stated that it was a female, by mistake, as may be seen from his description 

 of the gaster. It is a slightly but extensively orange-yellow form of L. gigas 

 Fabricius. 



L. nursei. The original material consists of one male and two females. The 

 male was described in more detail than the female and was labelled already by 

 Waterston as lectotype, which is accepted and now validated. All three specimens 

 belong to L. gigas, with the rich markings more or less orange-yellow (more orange 

 on the thorax in the females but with contrasting yellow on the gaster). 



Leucospis gigas has been figured many times, for example very nicely as early as 

 1775 by Sulzer (pi. 27, fig. 11; as 'Vespa dorsigera') and in 1783 by Fuessly (figs 

 1-10; as 'Leucospis dorsigera' [misidentification]). It is a well-known species, 

 although there has been some controversy regarding its forms and the eventual 

 usage of special names for them. Within the family we have here the best known 

 example of the existence of two, in most cases strikingly different, yellow-marked 

 and orange-marked forms, apart from the variation of the extent of the markings, 

 in some cases in connection with the variation of the length of the ovipositor, and 

 the absence of the males in most European populations. 



A separation of the orange-marked form (L. rufonotata Westwood) from the 

 yellow-marked form on morphological characters proved impossible. The orange 

 colour was once believed to be due to killing by cyanide, which was soon refuted 

 by those who could observe the specimens alive (e.g. Schletterer, 1890 : 159; Schulz, 

 1905 : 18, 20). The reason for the different colour has not yet been explained. 

 The orange-marked specimens (the male described for example by Masi, 1949 : 91-92) 

 come from a broad belt along the southern line of the distribution area of L. gigas, 

 mainly from North Africa (but also Sicily, Malta, some Greek islands) through the 

 Near East and Transcaucasia to Kirghizia (Nikolskaya, i960), and Iran to north- 

 west Pakistan; a single specimen is known to me from China. The phenomenon 

 seems to have something to do with the temperature or arid conditions of the 

 mentioned regions. Another interesting point was raised by Bytinski-Salz (1963) 

 who found that in Israel the two forms not only seem to be geographically separated 



