136 Indiana University Studies 
UNRECOGNIZABLE OR WRONGLY ASSIGNED SPECIES 
Cynips q. Catesbxi Ashmead, 1881, Proc. Ent. Sect. Phila. Acad., 
p. XV. Placed in Neuroterus by Cresson, 1887, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 
suppl. p. 179, and maintained in the genus by some later authors, but 
placed in AndHcus by others. Certainly not a Neuroterus. 
Cynips q. corifusa Ashmead, 1881, Proc. Ent. Sect. Phila. Acad., p. 
XVIII. Placed in Neuroterus by Ashmead, 1885, Trans. Amer. Ent. 
Soc., XII, p. 296. Very different from a Neuroterus; placed in Dryo- 
phanta by Ashmead and later authors. 
Cynips q. conifera Ashmead, 1881, Proc. Ent. Sect. Phila. Acad., 
p. XXVII. Placed in Neuroterus by Ashmead, 1885, Trans. Amer. Ent. 
Soc., XII, p. 296. Very different from a Neuroterus, and placed in 
Andricus by Ashmead and later authors. 
Cynips corrugis Bassett, 1881, Can. Ent., XIII, p. 109. Placed in 
Neuroterus by Ashmead, 1885, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., XII, p. 296, and 
placed by other authors variously in Dryophanta {=Diplolepis) , 
Holoaspis, Callirhytis, and Bassettia. Recently placed in Callirhytis by 
Weld. I have seen types, but will not go further now than to say it is 
not a Neuroterus. 
Cynips (Neuroteinis) crassitelus Provancher, 1881, Nat. Can., XII, 
p. 232. Named a Neuroterus by Ashmead, 1885, Trans. Amer. Ent. 
Soc., XII, p. 296, and maintained in that genus by later authors. From 
Canada, without host or gall record. The “sutures of the lobes distinct”, 
the very large second segment, and the length of 2.75 mm. are not in 
accord with this genus. The type, according to Gahan and Rohwer 
(1918, Can. Ent., L, p. 104), is in the second collection of the Public 
Museum of Quebec, with a white label “Cap Rouge, Canada”, and a 
yellow label 934, and is in bad condition. It is to be hoped that no 
student of Cynipidae will burden our nomenclatorial problems by at- 
tempting to identify this type. 
Neurotei'us favosus Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., XVII, 
p. 87. Ohio, Q. velutina. Maintained in this genus by later authors, 
but omitted from Beutenmuller’s 1910 monograph. I have examined 
types; they clearly belong to Plagiotrichus. 
Neuroterus flavipes Gillette, 1889, Iowa Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull., 7, p. 
281. Maintained in this genus by all other authors. I have seen a 
para type insect and a gall, loaned me by the U. S. National Museum, 
and the species shows no close relationships to Neuroterus. The rugu- 
lose thorax, the presence of parapsidal grooves and anterior parallel 
and lateral lines, the two indistinct fovese at the base of the scutellum, 
and the very build of the whole insect certainly rule it out of Neuroterus. 
Beutenmuller, 1910, expressed an opinion that the species does not be- 
long to this genus. 
Neuroterus lauHfolise Ashmead, 1887 (insect only), Trans. Amer. 
Ent. Soc., XIV, pp. 128, 140. Ashmead’s material was described from 
a loosely wool-covered gall on leaves of Quercus phellos. This gall is a 
