190 
Indiana University Studies 
ablo, seem to have come from Q. Douglasii. My records show 
that for at least one of these collections I verified the host 
determination while noting its unique nature. It is, however, 
inconvenient that an insect that is all but confined to Q. lobata 
should carry the name douglasii , and the situation is the more 
unfortunate because the bisexual form of this same insect was 
named lobata by McCracken and Egbert. 
In distribution this variety for the most part parallels 
echinus , wherever the hosts of the two occur together. But 
while echinus is replaced by another variety at the higher 
elevations fringing the Great Valley, I would refer insect and 
gall material which I have from Lake County to typical doug- 
lasii. I have 46 fine insects from Kelseyville alone, and can- 
not find material differences between them and douglasii un- 
less the Lake County material averages darker. In the con- 
sideration of the reality of life zones, perhaps this case 
should be emphasized as an instance where two, very closely 
related insects ( douglasii and echinus) do not respond in the 
same way to the same geographic factors. 
If there are constant characters by which douglasii may be 
distinguished from echinus, no one has yet described them. 
Upon examining a large series of the insects, I find the color 
distinctions noted by Fullawav are highly variable. The dis- 
tinctive form of the gall and the host seem to provide the only 
marks for recognizing this insect. It is surprising that no 
one has previously adjudged echinus and douglasii to be varie- 
ties of one species. 
Cynips echinus variety douglasii 
bisexual form lobata (McCracken and Egbert) 
Figures 23, 180 
Dryophanta lobata McCracken and Egbert, 1922, Stanford Univ. Publ. 
3 (1) : 13, pi. 1 fig. 9. 
FEMALE AND MALE. — With the first two segments of the an- 
tenna in the female rufous yellow, the entire antenna in the male brown- 
ish black; the parapsidal grooves distinct to the pronotum; the scutel- 
lum rather smooth, smoothest anteriorly; the foveal grooves finely 
roughened at bottom. Figure 180. 
GALL. — Closely resembling the galls of the other bisexual forms 
of the species ; perhaps more ovoid when fresh, the surfaces then pebbled, 
bearing low, indefinite ridges which terminate in short, soft spines es- 
pecially near the apex of the gall; on Quercus lobata. 
