Kinsey: Studies of Cynipidse 



53 



not covering a quarter of the abdomen ; ventral spine practically lacking-. 

 LEGS: Wholly bright rufous brown even on the coxae, hairy; tarsal 

 claws fine, weak, toothed. WINGS: Clear; hardly ciliate on the an- 

 terior margins; veins rich brown, rather heavy; areolet usually present; 

 cubitus reaches the basalis at the midpoint; radial cell rather short 

 and broad, open, the second abscissa of the radius hardly cui^ved, failing 

 considerably to reach the edge; first abscissa of the radius almost 

 straight with hardly a suggestion of a curve; radial cell entirely clear, 

 a brownish infuscation about the terminal part of the subcosta, extend- 

 ing into the subcostal cell. LENGTH : 1.5-2.5 mm. 



MALE. — Differs from the female as follows: Antennae with 14 

 segments; abdomen much smaller; areolet smaller, terminal part of 

 subcosta practically without infuscation; length 1.2-1.8 mm. 



GALL. — Large, irregular stem swelling, Polythalamous, with a 

 great many cells. Swelling rather abrupt, elongate, up to 60. mm. in 

 length by 20. mm. in diameter; somewhat irregular, smoothed, covered 

 with bark of normal color. Internally filled with mostly loose tissue in 

 which the larval cells are densely crowded, the cells not separate, but 

 almost separable, broadly oval, averaging 2. x 2.5 mm. On stems of 

 Rubus parviflorus (acc. B. G. Thompson in Mus. Comp, Zool.), and R. 

 nutkanus. 



EANGE. — From Alameda Co., California, to Washington and Idaho. 



These two varieties are about as similar as any two forms 

 which I should call distinct. Both insects and galls share the 

 similarity. The best single distinction between the insects is 

 the nature of the f ovese of the scutellum ; other characters are 

 distinct mostly in their averages. The two have distinct 

 ranges. This species is not so very different from Diastro- 

 phus nebulosus and D. turgidus of the eastern parts of the 

 United States, and I am not entirely certain that all of these 

 should not be considered varieties of one species. 



Diastrophus kincaidii variety kincaidii (Gillette) 



Diastrophus kincaidii Gillette, 1893, Can. Ent., XXV, p. 110. Dalla 

 Torre and Kieffer, 1910, Das Tierreich, XXIV, pp. 662, 841. Thomp- 

 son, 1915, Amer. Ins. Galls, pp. 24, 44. 



Diastrophus Kincaidi Kieffer, 1902, Bull. Soc. Metz, X, p. 92. Dalla 

 Torre and Kieffer, 1902, Gen. Ins. Hymen. Cynip., p. 73. 



Diastrophus kincaidi Beutemnuller, 1909, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 

 XXVI, p. 138, pi. XXVII, figs. 2, 3. Felt, 1918, N.Y. Mus. Bull., 

 200, p. 142, fig. 141 (2, 3). Kinsey, 1920, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. 

 Hist., XLII, p. 371. 



FEMALE.— Differs from the female of the other variety as fol- 

 lows: Antennae rather short and thickened, somewhat thicker apically; 

 anterior parallel and lateral lines only indicated, but perhaps less dis- 

 tinctly than in aiistrior; scutellum with foveas indefinite, mostly rugose 



