66 



Indiana University Studies 



elusive evidence that Walsh's galls were the same as those of 

 Rhodites radicunfi and that Walsh received his specimen from 

 a farmer, who found them while plowing his potato-patch and 

 sent them to the 'State Entomologist' as being 'potato-galls' 

 owing to their resemblance to a potato". The Walsh types 

 were lost in the Chicago fire. I quite believe that batatomtm 

 never came from a potato, and represents a rose root gall. 



Diplolepis seniipicea (Harris, 1841, Ins. Mass., p, 400), 

 was described from a rose root gall. Osten Sacken took the 

 insect to be an inquiline of the genus Periclistus and the name 

 applied to the gall has been taken to be a synonym of radicum 

 in most of the literature. Beutenmuller (1908, Psyche, XV, 

 p. 9) states that the remnants of the type semipicea show it 

 to be *'the same as Rhodites fulgens Gillette". This inter- 

 pretation appeared correct to me when I examined the type 

 of semipicea several years ago, but my examination then was 

 not very critical. If so, fulgens must be a distinct variety of 

 semipicea. Altho both radicum and semipicea produce 

 somewhat similar root galls on roses, the insects of the two 

 species are very distinct. 



Diplolepis radicum variety radicum (Osten Sacken) 



Rhodites radicum Osten Sacken, 1863, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., 11, pp. 42, 

 45, 46. Walsh, 1866, Pract. Ent., I, p. 114. Mayr, 1881, 20 Jahrb. 

 Communal Oberealsch., I, p. 18. Ashmead, 1885, Trans. Amer. Ent. 

 Soc, XII, pp. 293, 304; 1887, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, XIV, p. 134. 

 Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, XVII, p. 62. Beutenmuller, 

 1892, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., IV, p. 246, pi. 9, %. 3; 1904, 

 Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XX, p. 27; 1904, Amer. Mus. Nat 

 Hist. Guide Leaflet, 16, p. 6, fig.; 1907, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 

 XXIII, p. 648, pi. XLVII, figs. 7, 8. Dalla Torre, 1893, Cat. Hymen. 

 Cynip., II, p. 127. Dalla Torre and Kieffer, 1902, Gen. Ins. Hymen. 

 Cynip., p. 79; 1910, Das Tierreich, XXIV, pp. 716, 839. W. T. Davis, 

 1908, .Journ. N.Y. Ent. Soc, XVI, p. 55. Beutenmuller (in Smith), 

 1910, Ins. N.J., p. 603. Thompson, 1915, Amer. Ins. Galls, pp. 21, 

 45. Viereck, 1916, Conn. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull., 22, p. 441. 

 Felt, 1918, N.Y. Mus. Bull., 200, p. 144, fig. 148 (7, 8). Lutz, 1918, 

 Fieldbook Iiis., p. 468, pi. C, fig. 2. 



Diplolepis radicum Britton, 1920, Conn. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull., 

 31, p. 322. 



FEMALE. — Shows the following characters in addition to those 

 common to all varieties of the species: Face not radiantly striate as 

 in johnsoni; first two segments of the antennae very dark piceous; meso- 

 notum distinctly more coriaceous, rougher, more hairy than in other 

 varieties ; parapsidal grooves somewhat broader and more rugose than jn 



