8 
Indiana University Studies 
value as a catalog of only a couple of dozen species. By 
ignoring some discrepancies (as few as possible), it has been 
possible to recognize the six subgenera given here. The 
scheme admittedly is not ideal, for three of the groups are 
monospecific, and a group like Dolichostrophus shows several 
distinct lines of evolution, but there will be several advantages 
apparent thru the paper. This amount of subdivision will 
be more warranted upon the addition of material (mostly 
varieties) not yet described. If the numbers of the species 
and varieties should become enough to warrant two genera, 
the division should be based on the differences between the 
European subgenera Neuroterus and Spathegaster. 
There has not been extensive use of varieties in Cynipidse ; 
my previous paper (1922, Ind. Univ. Studies, 53) explains 
and illustrates the scheme employed here. It should be re- 
membered that earlier students of American Cynipidse have 
described 23 varieties of Neuroterus which have always been 
treated as distinct species except in those cases where Beuten- 
muller buried the distinct things in synonomy. By the em- 
ployment of varieties I am open to both the charges of being 
a ‘‘iumperf' and a “splitter”, the former in my treatment of 
species, the latter in my recognition of varieties; but in any 
event the scheme is employed with consistency, and does 
portray the different degrees of relationships that actually 
exist. 
There is such a great loss when a form which is actually 
distinct is put into synonomy, and it is so difficult to un- 
scramble the literature later on, that I have become very wary 
of announcing synonyms. The three cases given in this paper 
{consimilis, cupulse, and gillettei) are based on a direct study 
of type material, the insects apparently being identical, the 
type localities, hosts, emergence data, etc., being in accord. 
VARIATION AND TAXONOMIC CHARACTERS 
Because of the generally minute size, the smooth thorax 
without grooves (in most species), and the very simple nature 
of the galls, the genus Netiroterus furnishes fewer taxonomic 
characters than almost any other genus of Cynipidse. Within 
each of the subgenera the species are remarkably uniform in 
appearance, and in consequence these insects are relatively 
poorly known, while the published descriptions are weighed 
