Kinsey: The Genus Neuroterus 
137 
very common object thruout a large portion of the more southern United 
States, and the insect it produces is not a Neuroterus. I have quantities 
of the material I collected at several localities; Dr. Felt has sent me 
insects from the typical galls in Louisiana; Mr. Weld has pronounced 
the insects bred from his Georgia and Missouri material as not be- 
longing to Neuroterus, but he tells me that similar galls collected by 
Letterman, on Q. imbricaria, at St. Louis, Missouri, in 1874, were de- 
termined as N. laurifolix by Ashmead. Mr. Welt reports on the type 
material as follows: the galls fit the Ashmead description and are on Q. 
phellos; the type insect is gone from the pin bearing the’ type label and 
U. S. National Museum number, but there is one wasp from Jackson- 
ville, Florida, determined as laurifolix by Ashmead. Mr. Weld pro- 
nounces this a female Neuroterus (and Ashmead’s description of the 
insect does appear to belong to Neuroterus) , and another pin (No. 
4422) bears a male Neurotems but without a determination, and of 
course Ashmead did not describe the male. 
It is entirely evident that Ashmead confused a Neuroterus with galls 
which are produced by an entirely distinct species. This is one more of 
the many times Ashmead wrongly connected insects and galls. The 
Neuroterus which he had did not come from the woolly gall, and with 
the type specimen gone, the original description quite inadequate, and 
nothing but the single authenticated Ashmead determination of the in- 
sect available, the name should drop from further consideration in this 
genus. 
Neuroterus longipennis Ashmead, 1887, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 
XIV, pp. 132, 140. I have examined paratype insects and galls, and the 
species is not a Neuroterus. I do not now recognize the genus. The 
insects are males; Ashmead described the female, but the description 
fits the types, his “abdomen very small” fits a male instead of a female, 
and I am inclined to believe that he had only males. He stated that 
the thorax was “without parapsidal grooves, although in certain lights 
there are opaque lines”; but with good illumination complete, fine parap- 
sidal grooves are to be clearly seen. These, the rugose scutellum, the 
presence of a distinct line separating the scutellum from the mesonotum 
(the absence of this line is one of the best characters for Neuroterus), 
and the indistinct division of the furrow at the base of the scutellum into 
two foveag, — clearly rule this species out of Neuroterus. Its occurrence 
on a black oak is contrary to the rule in Neuroterus. 
Cynips Pattoni Bassett, 1881, Can. Ent., XIII, p. 98. Placed in 
Neuroterus by Ashmead in Packard, 1890, 5th Rpt. U. S. Ent. Comm., 
p. 110, but considered an Andricus by most authors. I have examined 
types, and they are not related to Neuroterus. 
Cynips q. phellos Osten Sacken, 1861, Proc. Ent. Soc., Phila., I, p. 
70. Placed in Neuroterus by Ashmead, 1887, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 
XIV, p. 132. The parapsidal grooves and peculiar wing venation 
separate this from Neuroterus. Placed in Andncus by Felt, 1918, N. Y. 
State Mus. Bull., 200, p. 61. 
