110 
Indiana University Studies 
calde), Three Rivers, Exeter, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Byron, 
Galt, Redding. Certainly thruout Central California and possibly wher- 
ever Q. Douglasii and Q. lohata occur. 
TYPES. — Females, males, and galls, in the Beutenmuller collection 
(and at Stanford University?). From Cupertino, California; Q. Doug- 
lasii; Rose Patterson collector. This is the bisexual material Fullaway 
described as hatatus. 
Fullaway, from material collected by Miss Rose Patterson, 
gave a good description of this insect which he wrongly took 
to be N. hatatus, considering the Douglasii leaf gall to con- 
stitute the whole bisexual generation and a lohata twig gall 
the whole agamic generation of the species. Dr. McCracken 
informs me that no data in the Stanford collection would 
prove the connection of these two galls, but Fullaway evi- 
dently saw the similarity of the insects. His published de- 
scription applies to the bisexual, leaf-inhabiting insects from 
Douglasii, and Dr. McCracken confirms this interpretation. 
In 1918 Beutenmuller published the name pacificus for the 
Fullaway material; the new name was not accompanied by 
a description, and Fullaway’s idea as to the connection of 
the two kinds of galls was repeated, with a mistaken record 
of its occurrence on Q, Kelloggii. Meanwhile material of quite 
a different Douglasii leaf gall, N. decipiens Kinsey, had gotten 
into several collections with the label pacificus, and was con- 
sequently offering an obstacle to the solution of the problem. 
I have bred an abundance of insects of this species, from 
the two kinds of galls, and cannot see any differences between 
those from Douglasii ‘leaves and those from lohata flower 
stems. I admit that there are so few structural characters 
for use in distinguishing a Neuroterus that it would not be 
impossible that the insects from the two hosts are really 
distinct varieties, even if not recognizable morphologically. 
The two very distinct kinds of galls might suggest distinct 
insect physiologies, but these galls differ only superficially; 
they are of the same fundamental plan, differing in ways 
which one might readily believe due to differences in the 
tissues affected. That the insect does attack different parts 
of the oaks again suggests distinct physiologic differences, 
but this may in large part be the result of differences in the 
unopened buds in which the wasp oviposits. Further, the 
choice of different hosts suggests the possibility of distinct 
