PART II. SYSTEMATIC DATA 
Our conclusions on the nature and origin of the species of 
Cynips given in Part I of this study have been based upon the 
data now presented as the routine taxonomic treatment of the 
varieties, species, and subgenera of the gall wasp genus 
Cynips . 
Cynips , as here defined, is a group of 93 highly specialized, 
oak inhabiting gall wasps, 26 of which have previously been 
included in this genus. Of the remaining species, 19 have 
been previously assigned to other genera, and 48 are here 
described as new. 
Since we are dealing with the oldest name in the family 
Cynipidae, it is of moment to review the varied history of the 
nomenclature and of the taxonomic concept. This history 
begins with the Linnean adoption of the term (1758:553) to 
cover essentially all of the insects which he knew from plant 
galls. His Cynips , with 14 specific names, included species 
that we now place in six distinct genera distributed among 
the three tribes of the Cynipidae, as well as several species 
of chalcidoids, some of them parasites bred from galls pro- 
duced by tenthredinids (Hymenoptera) and by cecidomyids 
(Diptera). Geoff roy, a contemporary of Linnaeus, made a 
better distinction (1762) between gall makers and parasites, 
altho calling the parasites Cynips and the gall makers 
Diplolepis. During the next century several attempts were 
made to fix the type of Cynips , but the only designation 
acceptable under the present International Rules was made 
by Westwood, in 1840, who named folii, probably the best 
known of all European gall wasps, as the type of the genus. 
Detailed discussion of this designation is given in the intro- 
duction to the European subgenus in this study. European 
usage largely followed Westwood’s designation until Mayr, in 
1871, used Forster’s Dryophanta in precisely the sense defined 
by Westwood for Cynips, and Mayr’s usage was adopted for 
the next half century. In 1910, however, Dalla Torre and 
Kieffer returned to Geofl'roy’s Diplolepis, and several recent 
authors have followed this practice, altho the usage is not 
approved by the findings of any of those (Morice and Durant, 
Rohwer and Fagan, Bradley, etc.) who have critically re- 
viewed the question. 
( 79 ) 
