6 



Indiana University Studies 



part oTniy program of revision of gall wasp genera. All of 

 the generic terms used in this paper define distinct, phylogen- 

 etic groups with the exception of the term Andricus. A good 

 genus Andricus can be separated some day, building about the 

 type species, but until then the term covers a waste basket. I 

 do not mean to imply the close relationships of the species here 

 placed in Andricus, but rather to indicate that their generic 

 positions cannot yet be defined. I employ Cynips to indicate 

 a good genus, of which Cynips folii Linnseus is the type (des- 

 ignated by Westwood, 1840, Synop. Gen. Brit. Ins., p. 56, and 

 reaffirmed by Rohwer and Fagan, 1917, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 

 LIII, p. 364). The majority of the species placed by both 

 European and American authors in Cynips do not belong to 

 that genus, and some of those placed in DryopJianta Forster 

 (isogenotypic with true Cynips) and Diplolepis Dalla Torre 

 and Kieffer (not Diplolepis Geoffroy !) belong to true Cynips. 

 Cynips is here used in a restricted sense which I shall more 

 fully explain later. I am not using the name Callirhytis be- 

 cause its type is unrecognizable. In the original establish- 

 ment of the genus Forster included his Callirhytis hartigi and 

 designated it as type. Hartigi was poorl}^ described, with- 

 out a host record, and without a locality record, altho prob- 

 ably the insect came from Germany. As far as I know, the 

 insect has never again been recognized. Later authors have 

 more or less generally adopted characters to restrict the term, 

 particularly that of a simple tarsal claw. However, it is not 

 known whether hartigi had simple or toothed claws, and until 

 we again recognize that species the later restrictions on the 

 term Callirhytis cannot have any standing. Certain it is that 

 the group as generally defined today in no sense defines a phyl- 

 ogenetic unit, and is meaningless. I prefer to reduce these 

 meaningless terms, and shall use only Andricus in that way. 



Some years ago I heard Dr. W. M. Wheeler remark that 

 what we needed in taxonomy was not longer, more detailed 

 descriptions, but pointed comparisons of related forms. These 

 comparisons are possible only when much material is avail- 

 able. As far as possible I have used the method, and I think 

 with highly satisfactory results. 



I have no interest in taxonomy j^er se, for it is not a science 

 concerned with questions of cause and effect. But until the 

 foundation of cynipid taxonomy is developed we shall not be 



