Kinsey : Gall Wasp Genus Cynips 
101 
Under these circumstances, it surely is not unreasonable to 
appeal to usage to preserve the current application of the name 
folii. Since 1872 no European entomologist has applied the 
name to anything but the Central European insect, except in 
a few cases of outright mis-determinations which were not 
confusions of nomenclature. It is the Central European in- 
sect which carries the name folii in the present paper. 
The second oldest name applied to the present species is 
Fourcroy’s Diplolepis quercus (1785), which was a binomial 
(acc. Rohwer and Fagan, 1917 :365) created for Geoffroy’s 
Diplolepis No. 1 (1762). The name quercus was never re- 
vived until Dalla Torre and Kieffer (1910) applied it to the 
Mediterranean variety of folii , probably because they discov- 
ered that Mayr had cited Geoffroy’s Diplolepis No. 1 in the 
synonomy of that southern variety. According to the title 
page of the earliest edition of Geoff roy, that author drew his 
material from near Paris where, we now find, only the typical 
folii occurs. Geoffroy himself believed he had the true Lin- 
nean folii in his Diplolepis No. 1 , as he indicated in the Sup- 
plement to a later edition of the Histoire des Insectes (1799, 
Vol. 2:721). It seems, then, that Fourcroy’s quercus, which 
was Geoffroy’s Diplolepis No. 1 , was a synonym of folii, and 
I am returning to Mayr’s pubescentis as the correct name of 
the agamic form of the southern variety flosculi. 
Incidentally, the name flosculi (1868) for the bisexual form 
of this Mediterranean variety is older than the name pubes- 
centis (1881) applied to the agamic form, and it is conse- 
quently the correct name for the variety, even tho most of us 
will find it convenient to continue to refer to the two forms 
by their particular names. This is one justification for the 
system of quadrinomials which I have employed in all of my 
papers for the alternating generations of Cynipidae. 
In the synonomy of typical folii I have placed Oliver’s scu- 
tellaris as Mayr placed it in 1881, and as practically all later 
authors have interpreted it. It would appear from the origi- 
nal publication of scutellaris that Oliver’s material may have 
come from Manosque in Provence, an area which (acc. Cotte, 
1912) has both the Central European and Mediterranean vari- 
eties of this species in it. We cannot, therefore, be more cer- 
tain of Oliver’s scutellaris than we are of Linnaeus’ folii, but 
again, in the absence of type material, we seem justified in fol- 
