112 



Indiana University Studies 



Plagiotiichus chrysDlepidicola variety chrysolepidicola 



(Ashmead) 



Cynips chrysolepidicola Ashmead, 1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XIX, p. 



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



59; 1910, Das Tierreich, XXIV, pp. 439, 802, 829. Thompson, 1915, 



Amer. Ins. Galls, pp. 7, 26. 

 Callirhytis chrysolejjidicola Fullaway, 1911, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., IV, 



p. 354. Felt, 1918, N.Y. Mus. Bull., 200, p. 59. 



FEMALE. — Shows the following characters in addition to those 

 common to all varieties of the species: Color generally a rather light 

 rufous brown; antennae bright rufous, the apical half brown; parap- 

 sidal grooves indistinct but traceable for the mesonotal length, broader 

 posteriorly than in kelloggi; median groove distinct for the mesonotal 

 length; anterior parallel lines evident, continuous, smooth; mesopleurse 

 in large part punctate and hairy, only in smaller part smooth; abdomen 

 about. as long as high; legs with the coxae light rufous brown, the tibise, 

 especially the hind tibise, dark brown; areolet of moderate size; cubitus 

 about continuous; length 2.-3. mm. 



GALL. — Quite similar to the galls of other varieties of this species; 

 rather small, elongate-ovate, up to 40. mm. in length by about 15. mm. 

 in diameter. On Quercus chrysolepis? 



RANGE. — California: "Pine Canyon", Martinez (Ashmead). 



TYPES.— Adults and galls at t-he U.S. National Museum. Labelled 

 January 8, 1883, and February 9, 1884; Martinez (and elsewhere?), 

 California; Koebele collector. 



I have seen only type material of this variety. The insect 

 is remarkably like that of variety alutaceiis, differing mainly 

 in having the parapsidal grooves less convergent at the 

 scutellum and the median groove distinctly continuous; the 

 gall is not inflated and partly hollow as in alutaceiis, but is 

 solid as in most of the varieties of this species. We must see 

 material of other collections before we can be certain what 

 this name represents. Quercus chrysolepis bears similar 

 galls of some other species, P. asymmetricus and Andricus 

 spectabilis, and possibly I have overlooked chrysolepidicola 

 galls for this reason. The hosts of the type galls are not cer- 

 tain, however ; the pin label records a live oak as host, and it 

 is not impossible that Ashmead merely surmised chrysolepis 

 as the host. The bark of the type galls is certainly not very 

 typical of chrysolepis. Finally, the inclusion of at least two 

 distinct collections of galls in the types makes the question of 

 host more uncertain. 



