452 
Indiana University Studies 
Parvula Bassett, 1900, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 26:326. Dryophanta 
in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of later authors. I saw the 
holotype at the Philadelphia Academy and concluded at that time that 
the insect was not a Cynips. The gall occurs on a black oak, which is 
not a Cynips character. 
Patelloides Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68(10): 60. Acraspis 
in orig. publ. Not an Acraspis but an Antron of the present monograph. 
Pedicellatus Kinsey, 1922, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 46:284. 
Andricus in orig. publ. Dryophanta acc. McCracken and Egbert, 1922. 
I have re-examined the paratypes. The radial cell is long and narrow, 
the hypopygial spine is blunt and not slender, nowhere broadened, and 
without a terminal tuft of hairs. The gall of this bisexual insect is a 
precisely formed leaf gall. These are not Cynips characters. 
Pedunculata Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 17 : 72. Dryo- 
phanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta and Diplolepis of later authors. I have 
seen the holotype, in the Philadelphia Academy, and several paratypes. 
This bisexual insect has a hypopygial spine which is slender, nowhere 
broadened, and without a terminal tuft of hairs. The gall is a pre- 
cisely formed structure on the edges of the leaves of black oaks. These 
are not Cynips characters. 
Perditor Bassett, 1900, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 26:313. Andricus 
in orig. publ. Incorrectly placed in Acraspis in Dalla Torre and Kieffer, 
1910:412, because Bassett’s specimen had wings which were “not fully 
expanded.” I have seen the holotype in the Philadelphia Academy. 
The wings are of full length altho crumpled. The thorax is transversely 
rugulose, the foveae are well separated, the second segment covers most 
of the abdomen, and the gall occurs on a black oak acorn. No one who 
has seen the insect has ever considered it an Acraspis. 
Polita Bassett, 1881, Canad. Ent. 13:99. Cynips in orig. publ. 
Dryophanta or Diplolepis of all authors since Mayr, 1881, Gen. gallen- 
bew. Cynip. : 36. I have seen the holotype, in the Philadelphia Academy, 
and several paratypes. The antennae are too short and the mesonotum 
is too smooth, shining, and naked for an agamic Cynips. The hypopy- 
gial spine approaches that of an Atrusca , and the galls bear a similar 
resemblance. The agamic insects, on the other hand, emerge in the 
spring, a month or two later than true Cynips, and we have incom- 
plete data on an alternate generation of the genus to which polita be- 
longs. This bisexual form is very different from true Cynips. 
Politus Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 17:85. Acraspis in 
orig. publ. and later authors. Weld (1922: 8) considered this a Xysto- 
teras. I have studied the holotype in the Philadelphia Academy. The 
hypopygial spine is rather long, very slender, and without a terminal 
tuft of hairs. It is certainly not an Acraspis. 
Porterae Cockerell, 1900, Canad. Ent. 32:91. Dryophanta in orig. 
publ. Diplolepis of later authors. I have studied the holotype in the 
