50 MISC. PUBLICATION 17 4, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



Meyer again listed three of the already-mentioned species of Harmo- 

 lita as hosts. 



That Ruschka was correct in synonymizing Cleonymus hemiptoms 

 with this species is considered extremely doubtful. The description 

 of kemipterus by Fonscolombe seems not to agree exactly with 

 atropurpureus } especially in the color of the legs. For that reason 

 the Fonscolombe species is omitted from the synonymy. 



Some confusion exists regarding the male of atropurpureus. The 

 species was originally described from the female only, Thomson be- 

 ing the first to associate a male with the female. Ashmead identified 

 both sexes from material sent to him from France by Marchal. In 

 his revision of the Eupelmidae of Europe and the Mediterranean 

 region, Ruschka gave it as his opinion that the male described by 

 Thomson was not that of atropurpureus but belonged to vesieularis 

 Retzius. At the same time Ruschka described what he believed to be 

 the true male of atropurpureus. this description being based ap- 

 parently on a single representative of that sex which had been reared 

 in Russia from (Isosoma) Harmolita rossieum. In the same paper 

 Ruschka, apparently following Dalla Torre, synonymized with vesi- 

 eularis the male (excluding the female) of Macroneura maculipes 

 Walker and also declared that the description of EupeJmus karschii 

 Lindeman is a characterization of the male of vesieularis. 



The writer cannot agree with Ruschka in this synonymy. 

 Although vesieularis is a common species in Xorth America, hun- 

 dreds of specimens of it having been reared and its life history 

 studied in detail by Phillips. McConnell, and others, no males have 

 ever been found. McConnell reared it through 5 generations, and 

 Phillips through 6, without producing a male. Hundreds of speci- 

 mens have also been reared at the gypsy moth laboratory without 

 the appearance of 'males. Chamberlin's rearing, mentioned above, 

 comprised typical females of atropurpureus accompanied by males, 

 but no females of vesieularis were present. In the cases of the 

 Marchal and Xikolskaja rearings, females of both species were pres- 

 ent, the males in both instances all agreeing with those reared by 

 Chamberlin. The males of the Marchal rearing were associated by 

 Ashmead with the females of atropurpureus instead of vesieularis, 

 whether on the basis of information furnished by Marchal it is now 

 impossible for the writer to say. The Xikolskaja specimens were 

 sent to the writer by the collector, already identified, with a request 

 for verification of the identifications, and in this case, also, the males 

 had been associated with females of atropurpureus, probably on the 

 basis of actual association in the rearing. Because of these facts 

 the writer is convinced that the males herein ascribed to atropur- 

 pureus are correctly placed in that species. These males appear to 

 agree exactly with the male of Thomson's description of atropur- 

 pureus and also with the description of the male of Macroneura 

 maculipes "Walker. Likewise they seem to agree with the description 

 of the male of vesieularis given by Ruschka. Ruschka does not 

 indicate either the number or the source of the male specimens from 

 which this description is drawn, and it is therefore impossible to 

 tell on what grounds he based his association of the sexes. He may 

 have had definite information tending to prove that males do exist 



