Peter Cameron.

A monograph of the British phytophagous Hymenoptera .. (Volume 1) online

. (page 3 of 31)
Online LibraryPeter CameronA monograph of the British phytophagous Hymenoptera .. (Volume 1) → online text (page 3 of 31)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

together with some force for the noise made thereby
could be distinctly heard. I did not observe whether
they tried to use their mandibles or not, but Westwood
mentions (Intr. ii, 109) having caught two males with
their mandibles interlocked. And every collector
knows that these insects can use their mandibles to
some purpose.



With regard to the relative number of the two sexes,
it is only with a few species that the males and
females can be said to be in anything like equal
numbers. As a rule the males are far fewer than the
females, and this remark holds good not only with
captured specimens, but also with those bred. Not
only are the males fewer, but with some species they
are absolutely unknown, while with several species
which have males in tolerable numbers parthenogenesis
plays a normal or occasional role.

Of common species provided with males, but in
extremely limited numbers compared with the females,
may be mentioned Strongylogaster cingulatus, Selandria
stramineipes, Hemichroa aim, Croesus varus, Blenno-
campa ephippium, Eriocampa adumbrata, Nematus
qucrcus, N. gallicola, N. acuminatus. Of Stron. cingu-
latus, Mr. Frederick Smith wrote me that he had only
taken in all five or six males, and these not on the ferns,
but on UmbellifercB in company of the females ; while
often he had had forty or fifty females in his net at one
time without a single male. My own experience with
this species is exactly the same. The only male I have
taken of 8. cingidatus was bred, and curiously enough it
appeared a fortnight after the females. I have often
reared N. gallicola, but have never been able to pro-
cure a male ; Mr. Smith has been more fortunate,
although even with him there only occurred " a single
male out of several hundreds of the flies " (Proc. Ent.
Soc. Lond., pt. iii, 1876, p. 22). Croesus varus is only
known to have a male from the very doubtful account
of its original describer Villaret, and that of Blenno-
camp a ephippium from a single specimen taken by
Brischke (Beitr. zur Parth. d. Arth., p. 228). The
male of Eriocampa adumbrata is very scarce, and I have
only seen one myself. As an example of a species
where the males may be said to be tolerably common


may be mentioned Nematus fallax, yet on counting the
specimens which I have caught and bred, I find a pro-
portion of about one male to twenty females.

The number of species in which no males are known
is pretty considerable, yet as many of these are rare
and local, it cannot be said with certainty that they do
not exist. Yet with some common species there is
evidence tending to show that this is actually the case,
or if they do appear it is at rare intervals. For
instance, Mr. Smith bred one year about four hundred
females of Eriocampa ovata, while not one of the other
sex made its appearance. This is also my own
experience ; nor has any Continental author described
it. Again, I have frequently bred such abundant
species as Hemichroa rufa, Phyllotoma nemorata,
Poecilosoma pulveratum, Fenusa betulce, without males
coming forth, and this has been the case with many
other observers.

Dineura verna is a widely known and common species,
of which no males have been discovered ; the same may
be said of Poecilosoma luteolum,* Hoplocampa brevis,
Blennocampa brevis, B. luteiventris (?), I?, albipes, Ne-
matus Erichsoni, and N. pallidiventris. The lack, or at
least extreme scarcity, of males in these insects may be
accepted with tolerable certainty, since, if they existed
at all they would, ere this, have been bred. And, as
every breeder of insects knows, males are easier to rear
than females, from their smaller size and from their
appearing earlier.

But the evidence of the occurrence of partheno-
genesis with the Tenthredinidce is not altogether of this
negative nature. From the admirable and thorough
observations and experiments of Kessler (Die Lebens-
geschichte von Ceuthorhynchus sulcicollis und ISTematus
ventricosus, Cassel, 1866), and more especially of von
Siebold (Beitr. zur. Parth. d. Arth., pp. 107130),
there cannot be the slightest doubt that Nematus ribesii

* Andre has recently signalised a male of this species from Syria, the
only record I have of its existence (Ann. Soc. Ent. Tr., 1881, 353).


possesses the faculty of laying unfertilised eggs which
invariably yield only males. There is reason to believe
that they do this regularly should they be prevented,
from any cause whatever, from having access to the
males ; and the eggs are laid immediately after the
females have left the cocoons. And when these
unfertilised females are examined after oviposition, no
traces of spermatozoa can be discovered in the ovaries,
while they are easily observed in those which have
been fertilised. It is worthy of remark that this
peculiarity of rtbesii was noticed by Robert Thorn
as early as the year 1820 (in the ' Memoirs of the
Caledonian Horticultural Society/ iv, pt. 2). He
seems to have had an idea " that there is a connection
between $ and ? caterpillars ; for I have frequently
observed them twisted together for some time after
they had ceased eating, and a little before they cast
their skins to go into the pupa state."

My own experiments with Jf. ribesii are completely in
accord with those of the writers just mentioned; while
with N. miliaris,* N. glutinosce, N. curtispina, and N.
palliatus, I have likewise been successful in getting
unimpregnated females to oviposit, the result being
(when the larvae did not perish young or in the
cocoons) that only males were produced. Mr. J. E.
Fletcher has likewise successfully experimented with
the species just named, with the same result, save that
in one experiment with N. curtispinaheTeKteA 21 3 $
and 1 ?. The rearing of a ? from an unimpregnated
? is certainly very rare, and contrary to the results
obtained with other species and by myself with the
same species, yet from the care with which Mr. Fletcher
conducted his investigation there can be no doubt of
the correctness of his statement. t

The same gentleman got an unimpregnated ? of
Nematus gallicola\ to lay eggs, but owing to the
weakness of the plant (a potted one) did not rear the

* Scot. Nat., iv, 157; Trans. Ent. Soc., 1880, 77.

t Ent, M. M., 1880, p. 269. J Trans. Ent. Soc., 1880, 77.


larvse ; a virgin Phyllotoma vagans to deposit between
sixty and seventy eggs, but failed to rear anything
from them ; one of Eriocampa ovata about thirty ova ;
and also got Hemicliroa rufa to lay, rearing males only
from the former, and males and females from the

Mr. Fletcher also bred two females from virgin ova
laid by two Croesus vanish Mr. Bridgman has also
got eggs from a virgin ? of E. ovata.%

I have myself obtained larvae from virgin Strongylo-
gaster cingulatus, Phyllotoma nemorata, Hemicliroa
rufa, Poecilosoma pulveratum, and reared females from
the two last species.

From these observations it is perfectly clear that
complete parthenogenesis occurs in such species as
Eriocampa ovata, Poecilosoma pulveratum, and Croesus
varus, while the mixed parthenogenesis of Nematus
ribesii and N. miliaris is beyond dispute. From the
readiness with which so many species deposit ova with-
out having had any connection with the males, and from
the general scarcity of the latter, it seems evident that
further investigation will show that the phenomenon is
of very common occurrence.

Von Siebold in his book has analysed Hartig's
Blattivespen with reference to this question, and shows
that the German author was unacquainted with the
males of 76 species out of a total of 381. A similar
analysis of the British species shows that the males of
53 species are yet unknown. No doubt many of these
are rare and little known forms, so that no great
reliance can be placed on them alone as showing the
scarcity or absence of males, yet the same result is
brought out in another way. Tabulating the species
in my collection I find, that in addition to the maleless
species noted above, 54 species are represented by
females only, so that I have never seen the males of
something like a third of the British species.

As to the precise significance which the phenomenon

* E. M. M., xviii, 126. t E. M. M.,xvii, 180. J Ent., 1878, 191.


may play in the economy of the creatures, it is idle to
speculate with the scanty knowledge at our command.
It is obvious, for one thing, that a greater number of
larvas will be produced with complete parthenogenesis
than with the mixed, or even with sexual generation ;
for every individual that comes to maturity is capable
of producing offspring, while with the sexual brood,
possibly half of the brood might be males. A con-
siderable number of the males born from the par-
thenogenetic larvse again may never (and I believe
this to be the case) come near the females, and thus
are useless, so far as the perpetuation of the species is
concerned. Thus it looks as if complete partheno-
genesis was more favorable to the continuation of the
species than mixed ; and it is clear, from the graduated
series of cases we have, from the sexual state through
mixed to complete parthenogenesis, as well as from
other considerations, that the faculty of dispensing
wholly or in part with the males has been acquired.
That it is not injurious to the species may be con-
cluded ; but I am inclined to believe that, compared
with sexual broods, fewer imagos are produced from
parthenogenetic larvae ; and if that conclusion is correct
(and it is founded on many observations made on Poe-
rilosoma pulveratum and Nematus gallicola) it follows
that the species are enabled to flourish only through
the great number of eggs which are deposited, that is
to say, they have less vitality for resisting climatal
agencies, or insect or fungoid enemies. My observa-
tions, however, are not sufficiently complete to enable me
to say definitely that such is the case, but the subject
is one well worthy of the attention of entomologists.

Our present knowledge of parthenogenesis with the
saw-flies may be tabulated as follows :

1. Eggs laid by virgin females yielded males with
Nematus ribesii, N. pavidus, N. curtispina, N. miliaris,
N. glutinosce, N. palliatus, N. salicis.

2. Eggs laid by virgin females yielded males and
females with Nematus curtispina, Hemichroa rufa.


3. Eggs laid by virgin females yielded females only
with Hemicliroa rufa, Eriocampa ovaia, Poecilosoma
pulveratum, and Croesus varus.

4. Eggs were laid by virgin females of Phyllotoma
nemorata, Ph. vagans, Taxonus glabratus, Strongylo-
gaster cingulatus, Nematus salicivorus, but no insects
were bred from them.


The Egg.

The egg is ovoid and longer than broad, with some-
times a curve on one side. The colour is white, occa-
sionally with a bluish tinge or slightly greenish. The
usual nidus for the egg is the leaf, but the manner in
which the eggs are deposited on it is very varied.
Very often they are scattered irregularly over the
epidermis (Nematus miliaris), or they may be placed
along the edge, the projecting part of the leaf being
used for this end by Hemicliroa alni ; and again, they
may be arranged along one or other of the veins as
with Nematus rilesii. Some species sink the eggs in
a hole in the epidermis, while others merely glue them
to it. A few species place them in a clump (N.
pavidus), but mostly they are separated from each
other when several are laid on the same leaf. One or
two of the leaf miners deposit only one egg on a leaf.
Many widely divergent species place their eggs in the
petiole, in which they may be either arranged in a
single or double row. And in connection with this, it
is worthy of being noted that the species having this
habit have the ovipositor very strong and broad, e.g.
Hylotoma pagana, Hemicliroa rufa, Nematus luteus:
Most of the gall-making species lay their eggs in the
leaf-buds before they have expanded, and in some
instances the growth of the gall and of the leaf goes
on at the same time.


After the egg lias been in the plant a few hours, it
swells up to more than double the size it was when
laid, while at the same time the receptacle in which it-
was deposited has widened, and, it may be, blackened.
Thus, instead of being beneath the epidermis (or twig
as the case may be), it now projects out of it. The
cause of this swelling is obscure. It is certain that
when the egg was laid, a drop ("Westwood* calls it a
" drop of frothy matter") of liquid was laid in the
incision along with it, but I do not think that this
has anything to do with the swelling of the egg. Its
purpose seems rather to be to widen and keep open
the incision made for the reception of the ovum, so
that its sides may not crush it ; and probably, too, it in
sonic way causes moisture to flow to the incision from
the surrounding portions. According to Newport,!
on the second day after the egg was laid the incision
expanded so much that " a free space remained around
the egg equal to its own width on each side." West-
wood { further remarks that the eggs imbibe "nutriment
in some unknown manner through their membranous
skins from the vegetable juices which surround them."

The swelling takes place before the form of the
larva can be seen in the egg, which can usually be
done on the third day. Whether the development of
the larva is ever retarded for a much longer period is
a point about which I have no definite information.

I think, however, it is very probable that with
Enipliijtus serotinus (which appears in the perfect state
at the end of September and October) the eggs remain
unaltered during the winter. We must either assume
that, or that the larvse appear when the leaves are
about gone, that they hibernate in a very young state
while the winter lasts, and then come out with the
young leaves in the spring.

* Intr., ii, 95. f Prize Essay, p. 23. J L. c., p. 96.


Habits of the Larvce.

The larvae feed on almost all classes of phsenero-
gamic plants, but having a decided preference (so far
at least as our present knowledge goes) for trees such
as Betula, Salix, Populus, Alnus, and Pinus. To these
plants they not unfrequently do great damage. Osiers
suffer severely from the attacks of species of Nematus
on the leaves ; Salix pentandra I have seen killed by
the Cnjptocampus pentandrce ; Nematus pavidus is
injurious to some of the small willows ; and N. miliaris
too often strips the leaves of 8. pentandra. Various
species of Lophyrus have, on different occasions,
devastated the pine forests along with the pine-feeding
LydoB. Our cultivated plants have not escaped from
their ravages, as the attacks of Athalia spinarum on
the turnip, Nematus ribesii on the gooseberry, and
Eriocampa adumbrata on pear and plum trees, too often
bear testimony.

I have drawn up a list of the food-plants so far as
they are known to me. I have thought it as well to
include species not yet known to inhabit Britain, so as
to serve as a guide to the student by showing him what
he may expect to find on the various plants. The great
majority of the species, it may be added, confine them-
selves to the same food-plant ; some, however, feed
indifferently on plants belonging to the same natural
order, while one or two species attack plants of diverse


Celmatis Vitalba. Blennocampa croceiventris, Kl.
Clematis erecta. ? Athalia abdominalis, F. (see

Ranunculus bulbosus. Amasis laeta, F.
Ranunculus Ficaria. ? Blen. albipes, Schr.
Ranunculus acris. Nematus Fahrei, Dim.


Ranunculus repens.

Dineura despecta, Kl.

Blennocampa albipes, Schr.
Aquilegia valgaris. Nematus aquilegise, Voll.
Berberis vulgaris. Hylotoma berberidis, Schr.
Sinapis arvensis. Athalia spinarum, F. A.ancilla, Lep.
S. nigra and 8. alba. Allan tus flavipes, Fourc.
Brassica cauipestris, var. Napus and Rapa. Athalia

spinarum, F. A. ancilla, Lep.
Sisymbrium officinale. A. ancilla, Lep.
Raplianus sativus. A. spinarum, F.
Cardamine pratensls. Tenthredo sp.*
Hypericum perforatum. Tenthredo sp.
Viola palustris. Tenthredo sp. (probably Blenno-
campa) .
Tilia par v-if olia and Europcea.

Eriocampa annulipes, Kl.

Blennocampa Tillia3, Kalt. (mining the leaves).
Geranium robertianum. Emphytus carpini, H.
Impatiens Noli-me-tangere. Macrophya sturmi, Kl.
Acer pseudo-platanus and campestre. Phyllotoma

aceris, Kalt.
Sarothamnus scoparius. Tenthredo sp. (a species

very like a Taxonus larva).
Trifolium pratense and repens.

Nematus myositidis, F.

Tenthredo sp. (a true Tenthredo apparently).
Lotus corniculatus. Tenthredo sp.
Robinia Pseudo-acacia. Nematus tibialis, Newm.
Primus communis, dom-estica, &c.

Eriocampa adumbrata, KL

Cladius padi, L.

Nematus moestus, Zad.

Lyda nemoralis, F.

L. pyri, Schr.

Phylloecus compressus, Fab.

* In tliis list, when no particular species is mentioned, the name
" Tenthredo " is used in a wide sense to include any unknown larva
belonging to the Tenthredinides which could not be referred to its
proper genus.

VOL. I. 8


Cratcegus Oxyacantha.

Cladius padi, L.

Dineura stilata, Kl.

Nematus xanthopus, Zad.

E. adumbrata, KL

Tenthredo sp.

Cimbex humeralis, Fourc.

Trichiosoma betuleti, Kl.

Lyda punctata, F.
Pyrus communis, Aucuparia, fyc.

Eriocampa adumbrata, Kl.

Hoplocampa testudinea, Kl.

Nematus abbreviatus, H.

N. posticus, Foer.

Croesus septentrionalis, L.

Dineura testaceipes, KL D. stylata, KL

Lyda pyri, Schr. Lyda nemoralis, L.

Trichiosoma sorbi, H.
Rubus IdceuSjfruticosus, fyc.

Hylotoma enodis, L. H. cyanella, KL

Cladius brullasi, Dbm. C. padi, L.

Tenthredo sp.

Emphytus perla, KL

Fenusa punctilio, KL

Blennocampa geniculata, If.

Phylloecus fumipennis, Evers.
Cotoneaster vulgaris. Lyda pyri, Schr.
Comarum palustre. Tenthredo, sp.
Rosa canina, eglanteria, fyc.

Eriocampa adumbrata, Kl. E. caninse, Gam.

Hoplocampa brevis, KL

Blennocampa pusilla, Kl.

Emphytus cinctus, L. E. rufocinctus, Retz. E.
melanarius, KL E. togatus, F. E. didymus,
KL E. viennensis, Schr.

Poecilosoma candidatum, Fall.

Cladius difformis, L. C. padi, L.

Hylotoma rosarum, F. H. pagana, Pz. H. enodis,
L. H. cyanella, KL, and Amethistina, KL



Rosa c mi in a, eglanteria, $v. (continued).

Lyda inanita, Vill.

Phylloecus phtisicus, Fab.
Agrimonia Eupatona. Fenella nigrita, West, (leaf


Potentilla reptans. Fenella nigrita, West.
Frag aria vesca. Tenthredo sp.
Geum urbarum.

Blennocampa geniculata, H.

Fenella nigrita, W.

Fenusa pumilio, Kl.
Spircea Ulmaria.

Emphytus calceatus, Kl.

Poecilosoma excisum, Th. (?).

Blennocampa geniculata, H.

Cephus zanthostoma, Evers.
Alchemilla vulgaris.

Blennocampa alchemillae, Gam.

Tentbredo sp.
Eibes grossularia and rnbrum.

Hylotoma-rosas ?.

Nematus ribesii, Scop. N. consobrinus, Voll. N.
appendiculatus, H.

Emphytus grossularias, Kl.

Selandria morio, F. (?) (see postea).

odium Podagaria. Tenthredo flavicornis, F.
Bupleurum falcatum. ? Allantus flavipes, Fourc.
Laserpitium latifolium, Lin. Tarpa spissicornis, Kl.
Heracleum SphondyUum.

Tenthredo mesomela, L.

Allantus heraclei, Endow.
At/fJtn'scus sylvestris. ? Cladius eradiatus, H.
Pastinaca sativa. Athalia Graeslii, Dours.
Sambucus nigra and racemosa. Macrophya albicincta,

Sch. ? M. ribis, Schr.
Viburnum Opulus. Allantus 3-cinctus, F.
Lonicera Xylosteum, L. Caprifolium.

Hoplocampa xylostei, Gir. (galls on twigs).

Tenthredo livida, L.


Lonicera Xylosteum, L. Caprifolium (continued).

Allantus 3-cinctus.

Cimbex lutea, L.

Abia genea, Kl. A. fasciata, L. (also on Lonicera

Symphoricarpus racemosus.

Allantus 3-cinctus.

Tenthredo livida, L.

Abia asnea, Kl.

Valeriana officinalis. Tenthredo sp.
Scabiosa succisa.

Abia sericea, L.

Tenthredo dispar, KL
Petasites vulgaris. Tenthredo sp.
Solidago Virgaurea. Tenthredo sp.
Achillea millefolium. Allantus sp.
Senecio nemorensis. Tenthredo sp.
Cirsium lanceolatum. Emphytus tener, Fall.
Vaccinium Vitis-idcea. Nematus vaccmiellus, C.
Vaccinium Myrtillus. Nematus quercus, H. N"e-

matus sp. (a green larva).

Lysimachia vulgaris. Poecilosoma luteolum, Kl.
Fraxinus excelsior.

Allantus 3-cinctus, F.

Pachyprotasis simulans, KL

Tenthredo punctulata, KL

Macrophya punctum album, L.

Blennocanipa nigrita, F. B. sericans, H. B.

melanopygia, Costa.

Ligustrum vulgare. Macrophya punctum, L.
Syringa vulgaris. Allantus 3-cinctus, F.
Jasminum. Allantus 3-cinctus, F.

8. aquatica. Pachyprotasis rapae, L.
Veronica Beccabunga, officinalis t Chamcedrys.

Tenthredo mesomela, L.

(?) Taxonus equiseti, Fall. Athalia annulata, F.
Nepeta Glechoma. Taxonus sp.


Stachys erecta. Nematus fuscus, Lep.
Plantago major 9 media, fyc. Taxonus sp.
Polygonum Bistorta, aviculare, fyc.
Tenthredo sp.
Taxonus glabratus, Fall.
Rumex Acetosella, acutus.
Tenthredo sp.
Nematus rumicis, Fall.
Taxonus equiseti, Fall.
Euphorbia palustris. Tenthredo sp.
Urtica dioica. Tenthredo sp.
Ulmus campestris and montana.
Cladius rufipes, Lep.
Nematus melanocephalus, H.
Fenusa ulmi, Sund.
Populus nigra, dilatata, tremula.
Cladius viminalis, Fall.
Croesus septentrionalis, L.

Nematus melanocephalus, H. N. albipennis, Eg.
N. croceus, Fall. N. conjugatus, Dbm. N.
Zetterstedti, Dbm. N. pavidus, L. N. com-
pressicornis, F. N. coeruleocarpus, H. N.
aurantiacus, Htg., Voll. N. umbripennis, Evers.
N. pallicercus, Voll. (Validicornis, Foer.). N.
sulphureus, Zad. N. curtispina, Th.
Cryptocainpus inquilinus, C. populi (pentandrae),


Phyllotoma ochropoda, Kl.
Fenusa hortulana, Kl.
Cimbex AmerinaB. L.
Lyda sylvatica, L.
Xiphydria dromedarius, F.
Sirex fuscicornis, F.
Salix caprea, fragilis, vitellina, fyc.
Tenthredo punctulata, KL
Emphytus succinctus, KL (?).
Phyllotoma microcephala, KL
Nematus pavidus, Lep. N. f ulvus, H. N. salicis,
L. N. melanocephalus, H. N. coeruleocarpus,


Salix, caprea, fragilis, vitellina, fyc. (continued).
H. N. histrio, Lep. 1ST. fallax, Lep. N". Glenel-
gensis, Cam. N. validicornis, Foer. N. cad-
derensis, Cam. N. glottianus Cam.

N. conjugatus, D&m. N. melanoleucus, ffi#. 1SJ.
pallescens, IL N. miliaris, P^. N. palliatus,
jT/i. N. lacteus, T/^. H". xanthogaster, Foer.
N. sulphurous, -Z'. N. jugicola, TJioms. N. leu-
costictus, IZ". (N. crassulus, Thorns.) 1ST. galli-
cola, S^e. N. ischnocerus, Tli. N. herbacese,
0. N. viminalis, L. N. vesicator, Br. N.
baccarum, Cam. N". bellus, Zad. N. fulvipes,
2^a/L N. fraxini, H. N. salicivorus. Cam. N.
curtispina. Thorns. N. bergmanni, I)&m.

Croesus septentrionalis, L.

Cryptocampus angustus, H. C. pentandrse, L.
G. saliceti, Fall.

Cladius seneus, Zad.

Cimbex vitellinse, L. C. femorata, L. 0. ame-
rinaD, L.

Zarsea fasciata, L. (?)

Hylotoma enodis, L. 9 nee Kl. H. ustulata, -L.
H. fuscipes, Fall. H. melanochroa, Gmel. H.
atrata, ^ors. H. ciliaris, L.

Lyda sylvatica, L.

Xiphydria dromedarius, L.
Betula alba.

Emphytus succinctus, KL (?). E. cingullum, Kl.

Dineura degeeri, Kl. D. rufa, Pz.

Fenusa betula3, Z. F. pumila, Kl.

Croesus septentrionalis, Z. C. latipes, Vill.

Nematus betulae, H. N. betularius, H. N. dor-
satus, Cam. N. acuminatus, Th. N. fraxini,
E. N. poecilonotus, Zad. N. dispar, Zad.

Cryptocampus quadrum, Costa.

Cladius padi, L. Blennocampa betulas, Kl.

Cimbex femorata, L.

Trichiosoma lucorum, L.

Hylotoma ustulata, L. H. pullata, Z.


Betula alba (continued).

Lyda betulse, L.

Xiphydria annulata, Jar. X. camelus, L.

Pinicola pusilla, Dal.

Tenthredo viridis, L. T. picta, Kl.

Allantus arcuatus, Forster.

Poecilosoma pulveratum, Retz.

Eriocampa ovata, L.

Phyllotoma melanopyga, Kl.

Fenusa melanopoda, 0.

Dineura alni, L.

Camponiscus luridiventris, Fall.

Croesus varus, Fill. C. septentrionalis, L.

Nematus luteus, L. N. bilineatus, Kl. N. abdo-
minalis, F. N. glutinosae, Cam.

Cimbex connata, Schr. C. axillaris, L.

Lyda depressa, Schr.
Fagus sylvatica.

Nematus fagi, Zad.

Cimbex femorata, L.
Corylus Avellana.

Croesus septentrionalis, L.

Nematus togatus, Zad.
Quercus Robur, cerris.

Empliytus cerris, KL E. serotinus, Kl. E. suc-
cinctus, Kl. E. tibialis, Pz.

Phylloecus cynos bati, L.

Blennocampa pubescens, Zad. B. lineolata, Kl.
B. melanocepliala, Fab.

Online LibraryPeter CameronA monograph of the British phytophagous Hymenoptera .. (Volume 1) → online text (page 3 of 31)