1864.] 
477 
and thorax. In one (F. impatiens Say, 8 S , 6 9 ) and another much 
smaller species (1 $ n. sp. ?), the radial area is completely closed by a 
stout brownish vein, evidently a prolongation of the costal. In another 
(1 9 n. sp. ?) the radial area is closed, the closing vein brownish and 
tapering to nothing at tip. In a fourth (I S , n. sp.?) and a fifth (I 9 
n sp. ?) the brownish closing vein tapers to nothing half-way to the tip 
of the radial area; and in a sixth, Flgites ( Diplolepis) Mineatus Say, 
(I S , 3 9 ) the radial area is entirely open, the costal vein tapering to 
nothing before it attains the costal margin. Again, in Diplolepis arma- 
tus Say, ( 3^,39 ?) ^ true Figitide which I take to be an JEgilips^ the 
radial area is open, and in another congeneric species (1 S , n, sp. ?) it 
is distinctly closed.* 
The results thus far obtained may be conveniently tabulated as fol¬ 
lows :— 
Cynipidae, subfamily Psenides, (True G-all-fiies.) Wings with the second trans¬ 
verse vein so bent or incurved towards their base, that the areolet is opposite 
the base of the radial area. Radial area scarcely ever closed by a prolon¬ 
gation of the costal vein.f Sheaths of the ovipositor scarcely ever project¬ 
ing beyond the tip of the “dorsal valve.”! Ovipositor scarcely ever projecting 
from between the tips of the sheaths. 
* If I am right in referring these two last insects to ^gilips Haliday, that 
genus must appertain to true Figitidce Walsh, and in that case ^gilips (?) obtu- 
siloboe 0. S. {Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila. I, p. 68), which is a guest gall-fly, must be 
incorrectly referred to Mgilips. Very likely, however, I may be wrong, and 
the genus Mgilips may belong to the true Inquilinous Cynipidse. 
f Osten Sacken states that it is closed in Rhodites ignota 0. S. {Proc. Ent. Soc. 
Philad. II, p. 49,) and I observe that it is so in Rh. roscc Linn. It will be no¬ 
ticed that almost all the distinctive characters laid down above admit of cer¬ 
tain rare exceptions, and yet, taken as a whole, they are perhaps more natu¬ 
rally distinctive than a single dichotomous, character which of course could 
admit of no exception. Fossores are sufficiently distinct from Diplopteryga, 
and yet there is not one single character that distinguishes them but what ad¬ 
mits of occasional exceptions. 
! In certain species individuals occur with the sheaths withdrawn from the 
caudal groove, (as in Fig. I, ss), but it is easy to see that if the sheaths were re¬ 
placed there they would not project beyond the “dorsal valve.” I notice the 
above peculiarity only in 11 out of 13 9 9 n. sp., which were 
all dug out of the gall dead and therefore perhaps not in their normal condi¬ 
tion, and in 1 out of 5 9 9 P fiocci n. sp. All my other 9 P^cnidcs, nearly 
200 in number, have the sheaths entirely hidden in the caudal groove except¬ 
ing of course the two species mentioned above, in which the tips of the sheaths 
project from the tip of the “dorsal valve.” 
