Kinsey: Gall Wasp Genus Cynips 185 
They differ no more from the agamic forms than the bi- 
sexual forms of European Cynips differ from their experi- 
mentally connected agamic forms. 
There are only three species recognized among the agamic 
forms of Antron, and the present bisexual forms appear to be 
connected with the agamic echinus rather than with teres or 
guadaloupensis, for the following reasons: They have the 
mesonotum reticulated; they have blotched but not spotted 
wings; there is another bisexual insect (Beutenmtiller’s pul- 
chella) which shows the spotted wings of the agamic teres. 
The present bisexual forms are represented by varieties on 
Q. lohata , Q. Douglasii, and Q. dumosa, on all of which hosts 
we find the agamic echinus but not teres or guadaloupensis ; 
teres is unknown from Q. Douglasii on which the agamic 
echinus is common. 
The bisexual form is represented in the Central Valleys of 
California, an area in which echinus is common but teres un- 
known. 
The bisexual galls are similar to the galls of the agamic 
echinus in being fundamentally spherical with short, blunt, 
projections; and the bisexual gall is most nearly spherical and 
most nearly spineless on the host that bears the agamic 
echinus galls of this nature (variety schulthessae on Q. 
durata) . 
There is nothing in the structural, host, and distributional 
data which would preclude the connection of these bisexual 
forms with echinus, while there would be the several incom 
sistencies noted above in connecting the forms with teres. 
In spite of the difficulty of collecting the spring galls, they 
are known to represent four varieties and therefore probably 
belong to a species that has at least as many common agamic 
forms known. The agamic echinus again qualifies on this 
count. 
This species contributes materially to our comparison of 
morphologic and physiologic data in taxonomy. The agamic 
insects of the several varieties are all similar, and in several 
cases practically identical; the bisexual insects are as nearly 
identical ; the bisexual galls are indistinguishable in three vari- 
eties, but the agamic galls are so distinct that most workers 
would accept them as the work of different species. Were we 
dealing with a group of insects in which we had no such physi- 
