# The Gall Wasp Genus Cynips: A Study in the Origin of Species/Excluded Species

EXCLUDED SPECIES
From the list of several hundred names which have at various times been combined with the generic term Cynips and which we are now excluding from the genus, it seems necessary to make detailed comment on only a few. These are chosen for the most part from the more recent revisions of the genus, or parts of the genus, which have been published under the names Dryophanta, Diplolepis, Acraspis, or Philonix, in the following:
Dalla Torre and Kieffer, 1902, Gen. Ins. Hymen. Cynip.: 52-53, 58.
Beutenmüller, 1909, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 26:246-254.
Dalla Torre and Kieffer, 1910, Das Tierreich 24: 342-371, 408-413.
Beutenmüller, 1911, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 30:343-369.
Weld, 1922, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 61 (18): 7-15.
Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 14-36, 57-62.
Aggregata Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 15. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have seen the holotype and 3 paratypes. The agamic insect has many characters of true Cynips, but the hypopygial spine is unusually long, slender, evenly tapered to a sharp point, and hairy over a wide area but without a terminal tuft of hairs. The agamic galls are clustered on twigs and not on leaves. These are not true Cynips characters.
Amorpha Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 17. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have studied the holotype and most of the paratypes. The agamic insect has a smooth, shining, and naked mesonotum, distinct foveae at the base of the scutellum, and a slender, almost needlelike hypopygial spine which is without a terminal tuft of hairs. The gall is a small, hollow cylinder with the larval cell at bottom. None of the above are true Cynips characters.
Aquaticae Ashmead, 1881, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 9: XVI. Cynips in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the National Museum types. The insect belongs to the palustris groups of insects and is ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis. See palustris in this list.
Atrimentus Kinsey, 1922, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 46:279. Andricus in orig. publ. Diplolepis of later authors. I have re-examined paratypes. The bisexual insect has a slender hypopygial spine which is not broadened and does not have a terminal tuft of hairs. The bisexual gall occurs in the leaf blade from which it is inseparable. None of these are true Cynips characters. The insect should not have been transferred to Diplolepis (= true Cynips).
​Australiensis Kieffer, 1906, Marcellia 5:105. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Diplolepis of later authors. From the original publication the insect appears to have the mesonotum smooth, shining, and nearly naked, an elongate radial cell, the cubitus lacking, and a strongly compressed abdomen, which are not true Cynips characters. The description of the hypopygial spine as “wide, hardly longer than wide, with erect and long hairs,” would apply to a true Cynips. The insect came from New South Wales. Until material can be examined, or until we know more of the fauna of that region, the non-Cynips characters seem too many to warrant including the species in our present monograph.
Bedeguaris Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. Paris: 392. Diplolepis in orig. publ. and later authors. Obviously from a rose gall, the insect probably an inquiline.
Brunneipes Ashmead, 1904, Joum. N.Y. Ent. Soc. 12: 80. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Diplolepis of authors. I have examined the holotype at the National Museum. The hypopygial spine is slender, needle-like, not broadened in any place, without a terminal tuft of hairs, and entirely different from a true Cynips.
Caepula Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 19. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have studied the holotype and numerous paratypes. The agamic insect is quite small, the mesonotum coriaceous and nearly naked, the hypopygial spine slender, needle-like, and without a terminal tuft of hairs, and the wings perfectly clear with fine veins and a very faint base to the cubitus. The gall is a hollow cone with the larval cell at bottom. The agamic insect emerges in April. None of these are true Cynips characters.
Californica Beutenmüller, 1911, Ent. News 22:69. Philonix in orig. publ. Biorhiza and Xanthoteras of some authors. I have studied the holotypes and paratypes. The insects belong to the discus group and are ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis as discus (q.v.).
Capillata Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 20. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have studied the holotypes and most of the paratypes. The mesonotum is coriaceous to polished and almost naked, the hypopygial spine is slender, needle-like, and without a terminal tuft of hairs. The agamic galls are very small, pubescent, occurring in clusters. The adults do not emerge the first year. These characters rule it out of true Cynips.
Cinereae Ashmead, 1887, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 14: 129, 144. Dryophanta in orig. pub. Dryophanta and Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the types which are males. They belong to the palustris group of insects and are ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis. See palustris in this list.
Clarkei Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 17:69. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta and Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the holotype and several paratypes in the Philadelphia Academy and other collections. This bisexual insect has a blunt hypopygial spine ​which is not fine but which does not show any of the broadening char acteristic of true Cynips.
Compressus Gillette, 1891, Bull. 111. Lab. Nat. Hist. 3:197. Acraspis in orig. publ. and later authors. I have seen the National Museum type. The tarsal claws are simple, the wings entirely lacking, and the hypopygial spine long, very slender, with scattered hairs but without a tuft of hairs terminally. The gall occurs on black oak. All of these characters disagree with those of true Cynips. Weld (1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 55) considers this insect a Zopheroteras.
Confusa Ashmead, 1881, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 9: XVIII. Cynips in orig. publ. Neuroterus, Dryophanta, and Diplolepis of later authors. The National Museum types are lost. From the original description, this black oak insect appears to belong to the palustris group, and it would be ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis as palustris (q.v.).
Corrugis Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 17: 71. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the types in the Philadelphia Academy. The thorax is largely smooth and shining but transversely wrinkled, the wing veins are very pale and almost colorless, and the hypopygial spine, altho rather stout and well developed, is not broadened and does not have the terminal tuft of hairs of a true Cynips.
Cressoni Beutenmüller, 1913, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 39:248. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Not known except from the holotype which is in the Beutenmüller collection and inaccessible at this time. Unless the description is correct in recording the radial cell as closed, I can see no warrant in this original publication either for including or excluding this apparently bisexual insect from true Cynips.
Discalis Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 24. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have seen the holotype at the National Museum and several paratypes. The insect belongs to the discus group and is ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis as discus (q.v.).
Discularis Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 25. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have seen the holotype in the National Museum and several paratypes. Belongs to the discus group and is ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis as discus (q.v.).
Discus Bassett, 1900, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 26:326. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta and Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the holotype and paratypes in the Philadelphia Academy. The insect is quite small, the hypopygial spine is long, very slender, without a terminal tuft of hairs, and very different from true Cynips. The gall is a small, thin, and flattened disc bearing no resemblance to any Cynips gall except that of guadaloupensis. The agamic insects emerge early in the spring, several months after most Cynips.
Dubiosa Fullaway, 1911, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 4:339. Diplolepis in orig. publ. and later authors. I saw the Stanford types some years ago, and now have large series of collected material. This bisexual insect ​has the hypopygial spine rather fine, blunt, and nowhere broadened, without a terminal tuft of hairs. The galls occur on black oaks. These are certainly not true Cynips characters.
Eburneus Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 16: 70. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of most later authors. I have seen the holotype in the Philadelphia Academy and several paratypes. The antennae are too short and too stout, the mesonotum too smooth, shining, and naked for an agamic Cynips. The hypopygial spine is somewhat broadened at base, but it is more slender and elongate than in Cynips. Incomplete data indicate a bisexual generation which is very different from true Cynips.
Emoryi Ashmead, 1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 19:115. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the holotype in the National Museum and several paratypes. Originally described from the black oak, Q. Emoryi, but leaves with the types belong to the Q. undulata group of white oaks. The insect belongs to the eburneus group and is ruled out of Cynips on the same basis. See eburneus in this list.
Flavipes Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. Paris: 393. Diplolepis in orig. publ. and still maintained by Dalla Torre and Kieffer, 1910. The orig. descrip. obviously insufficient for identification of any cynipid.
Fuscus Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. Paris : 392. Based on Diplolepis No. 5 Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. Ins. 1: 311. Diplolepis in orig. publ. and still maintained by Dalla Torre and Kieffer, 1910. Orig. descrip. insufficient, and does not mention the gall, so the name is unrecognizable.
Glabra Gillette, 1894, Canad. Ent. 26:237. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of most later authors. I have studied the holotype in the U.S. National Museum. The insect is close to eburneus Bassett and is ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis. See eburneus in this list.
Guadaloupensis Fullaway, 1911, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 4:363, pl. 23 fig. 4. Acraspis acc. Weld 1926: 59. Not an Acraspis but an Antron as treated in the present monograph.
Hakonensis Ashmead, 1904, Journ. N.Y. Ent. Soc. 12:81. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen all of the type series in the National Museum. The mesonotum is smooth and shining and the hypopygial spine is slender, pointed, nowhere broadened, and without a terminal tuft of hairs. These are not true Cynips characters.
Ignota Bassett, 1881, Canad. Ent. 13:106. Cynips in orig. publ. Andricus, Dryophanta, and Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the holotype in the Philadelphia Academy, and numerous paratypes thsre and in other collections. The insect bears little resemblance to a true Cynips. The mesonotum is prominently coriaceous and nearly naked, the scutellar foveae are well separated, the wing veins are rather fine and quite light in color, the hypopygial spine is slender, in no place ​broadened, and without a terminal tuft of hairs. The gall is a wool-covered larval cell attached directly to the leaf. The agamic insects emerge in March or April. None of these are Cynips characters.
Insolens Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 59. Acraspis in orig. publ. Not an Acraspis but an Antron of the present monograph.
Japonica Ashmead, 1904, Journ. N.Y. Ent. Soc. 12:79. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen the holotype in the National Museum. The mesonotum is smooth and shining, the hypopygial spine is short, not fine but pointed, and except for its terminal tuft of hairs, the spine is not like that of true Cynips.
Lanata Gillette, 1891, Bull. 111. Lab. Nat. Hist. 3:198, pi. 9 fig. 5. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of most later authors. I have studied the National Museum types. The insect has simple tarsal claws, wing veins which are light in weight and color, and a hypopygial spine which is long, slender, somewhat curved, sharply pointed, and without a terminal tuft of hairs. The galls occur on black oaks. The adults emerge in the spring of the second year. These are very different from the characters of true Cynips.
Laurifoliae Ashmead, 1881, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 9: XVII. Spathegaster in orig. publ. Dryophanta and Diplolepis of later authors. 1 have studied the National Museum types. They belong to the palustris group of insects and are ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis. See palustris in this list.
Liberaecellulae Gillette, 1889, Iowa Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 7:283, fig. 27. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of later authors. I have studied four of the types at the National Museum. They are ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis as the other insects of the palustris group. See palustris in this list. Longicomis Bassett, 1900, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 26:327. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of later authors. I have studied the holotype and paratypes in the Philadelphia Academy. It is never easy to recognize a bisexual Cynips and the available material of this bisexual insect offers only one female and two males which are not sufficient for a precise generic assignment. The hypopygial spine of the one female specimen is not slender but not distinctly broadened as in Cynips. The spine has hairs at the tip, but the hairs hardly seem as long or as abundant as they are in bisexual Cynips.
Mitsukurii Ashmead, 1904, Journ. N.Y. Ent. Soc. 12:81. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen all of the type series in the National Museum. The mesonotum is smooth and shining, the hypopygial spine is rather short, fine, nowhere broadened, without a terminal tuft of hair, and thus very different from true Cynips.
Nawai Ashmead, 1904, Journ. N.Y. Ent. Soc. 12:80. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Diplolepis of later authors. I have seen all the types in the U.S. National Museum. The mesonotum is smooth, naked, and ​shining, the hypopygial spine is short, not fine but not broadened as in true Cynips, without the terminal tuft of hairs typical of Cynips.
Niger Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. Paris: 392. Based on Diplolepis No. 4 Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. Ins. 1:311. Diplolepis in orig. publ. and still maintained by Dalla Torre and Kieffer, 1910. Original description insufficient for recognizing any cynipid. Gall not described.
Notha Osten Sacken, 1870, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 3: 55. Cynips in orig. publ. Andricus, Callirhytis, Dryophanta of later authors. I have compared the types with the types of palustris at the Museum of Comparative Zoology. The two insects belong to the same group and are ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis. See palustris in this list.
Occultata Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 28. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have studied the holotype and numerous paratypes. The agamic insect is rather small, the mesonotum conspicuously coriaceous and almost naked, the scutellar foveae distinctly separated, the hypopygial spine slender, needle-like, and without a terminal tuft of hairs, and the wings perfectly clear with fine veins and a very faint base to the cubitus. The agamic gall is a seed-like cell in a bud. None of these are Cynips characters.
Operta Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 19. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have studied the holotype and most of the paratypes. The agamic insect is rather small, the mesonotum conspicuously coriaceous and almost naked, the scutellar foveae distinctly separated, the hypopygial spine slender, needle-like, and without a terminal tuft of hairs, and the wings perfectly clear with fine veins and a very faint base to the cubitus. The agamic gall is a seed-like cell in a bud. None of these are Cynips characters.
Palustris Osten Sacken, 1861, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila. 1:63. Cynips (Trigonaspis?) in orig. publ. Cynips, Andricus, Callirhytis, and Dryophanta of later authors. I have insects which I compared with the holotypes some years ago. This bisexual insect is superficially similar to bisexual Cynips, but the hypopygial spine is short, not slender but nowhere broadened as in Cynips, and without a distinct terminal tuft of hairs. The galls are inseparable leaf galls or flower galls, spherical, hollow, with the larval cell rolling about loose in the otherwise empty gall. They occur on species of black oaks. There are several other species or varieties of this group that are commonly but wrongly assigned to our present genus. They are all ruled out of Cynips by the same characters.
​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. Dryophanta 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 precisely 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 Diplolepsis of all authors since Mayr, 1881, Gen. gallenbew. 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 hypopygial 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 incomplete data on an alternate generation of the genus to which polita belongs. 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 Xystoteras. 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 ​U.S. National Museum. The insect belongs to the eburneus group and is ruled out of Cynips on the same basis. See eburneus in this list.
Pulchripennis Ashmead, 1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 19: 115. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of later authors. I have studied the holotype in the U.S. National Museum. The insect belongs to the eburneus group and is ruled out of Cynips on the same basis. See eburneus in this list.
Pumiliventris Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 17: 69. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta, Diplolepis, and Trigonaspis of later authors. I have seen the holotype male in the Philadelphia Academy and numerous paratype males. Weld (1921, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 59: 205) concludes that this is a Trigonaspis synonymous with Trigonaspis radicis Ashmead. See the remarks on the genus under texana in this list.
Pusulatoides Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 17: 74. Andricus in orig. publ. Andricus, Dryophanta, and Callirhytis of later authors. I have seen the holotype at the Philadelphia Academy. The insect is ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis as palustris, (q.v.) in this list.
Quercifoliae Ashmead, 1885, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 12: 299. Andricus in orig. publ. Andricus, Callirhytis, Dryophanta, and Diplolepis of later authors. I have studied the holotype at the National Museum. The insect belongs to the palustris group, and is ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis. See palustris in this list.
Radicola Ashmead, 1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 19: 116. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta, Diplolepis, and Amphibolips of later authors. Weld (1921, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 59: 203) assigned the species to Trigonaspis. I have seen the holotype in the National Museum and agree with Weld's assignment. See notes on the genus under texana in this list.
Saecularius Bassett, 1890, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 17: 76. Andricus in orig. publ. Diplolepis (as synonym of cinereae) in Weld 1926. I have seen the holotype, which is a male, in the Philadelphia Academy. The insect belongs to the palustris group (q.v.) and is probably ruled out of Cynips on the same basis.
Serratae Ashmead, 1904, Journ. N.Y. Ent. Soc. 12: 80. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Diplolepis of later authors. I have studied the holotype in the National Museum. The thorax is shagreened, the hypopygial spine is short, blunt, not widened, without a terminal tuft of hairs. These are not true Cynips characters. Weld has put the holotype under Trichagalma in the National Museum collection.
​Similis Bassett, 1890, Trans Amer. Ent. Soc. 17: 71. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of most later authors. Name pre-occupied, and therefore changed to simillima by Dalla Torre. I have seen the holotype, in the Philadelphia Academy, and several paratypes. The insect is close to ebumeus Bassett and is ruled out of true Cynips on the same basis. See ebumeus in this list.
Simillima Dalla Torre, 1893, Cat. Hymen. 2: 54. New name for similis Bassett (q.v.).
Splendens Weld, 1919, Canad. Ent. 51:254. Andricus in orig. publ. Diplolepis in later publications of the same author. I have seen the holotype in the National Museum and numerous paratypes. The hypopygial spine is very slender and without a terminal tuft of hairs, and the wing venation is rather fine. The galls are hollow urns with the larval cell at bottom. The agamic insects delay emergence until March or April. These are not Cynips characters.
Sulcata Förster, 1869, Verh. zoo.-bot. Ges. Wien 19:335. Liodora in orig. publ. Dryophanta of later authors. Kieffer (1901, André Hymén. Europe 7 (1): 620) considered this a synonym of Cynips folii folii form taschenbergi. I consider the name unrecognizable. See the discussion under taschenbergi in the body of this paper.
Sulphurea Weld, 1926, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 68 (10): 33. Diplolepis in orig. publ. I have seen the holotype at the National Museum. The hypopygial spine is long, very slender, and without a terminal tuft of hairs. The gall is a hollow cone with the larval cell at the bottom. These are not Cynips characters.
Tecturnarum Kinsey, 1920, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 42:312, pi. 25 fig. 30-33. Andricus in orig. publ. Diplolepis in Weld 1926:34. I have recently re-examined cotypes The hypopygial spine is very slender and without a terminal tuft of hairs, and the wing venation is rather fine. The galls are hollow urns with the larval cell at bottom, and they occur in dense clusters on the leaves. None of these are Cynips characters. The insects should not have been transferred to Diplolepis (= Cynips).
Tenuicornis Bassett, 1881, Canad. Ent. 13:92. Cynips in orig. publ. Holcaspis, Loxaulis, and Bassettia of latter assignments. Diplolepis in Weld 1926. I have seen the types. The agamic insect has the mesonotum conspicuously coriaceous, the abdomen opaque and rough as ground glass, the hypopygial spine rather short, not fine but not broadened anywhere, without a terminal tuft of hairs. These are not true Cynips characters. The galls are polythalamous, wool-covered, hemispherical masses as different as leaf galls might be from true Cynips galls.
Texana Ashmead, 1887, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 14:145. Dryophanta in orig. publ. Dryophanta or Diplolepis of most authors. I have seen the holotype in the National Museum. Weld has placed this material under Trigonaspis in the Museum's collection, and I agree with this assignment. A bisexual Trigonaspis is larger than a bisexual Cynips, ​with the mesonotum very smooth and shining, the hypopygial spine rather slender, blunt, and without any broadened area, and the eyes of the male prominently enlarged. The galls and life histories differ from true Cynips.
Vaccinii Ashmead, 1887, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 14:127, 136. Acraspis in orig. publ. Acraspis, Zopheroteras, Trigonaspis, and Philonix of later authors. I have studied the holotype and the paratype in the U.S. National Museum. The tarsal claws are simple, the wings entirely lacking, and the hypopygial spine long, very slender, with scattered hairs but without a tuft terminally. These are not Acraspis characters.
Vacciniifoliae Ashmead, 1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 19:130. Callirhytis in orig. publ. Diplolepis in Weld 1926: 36. I have seen the National Museum holotype and numerous paratypes. The thorax of the insect and the oak-apple type of leaf gall are similar to those of true Cynips; but the insect differs materially from Cynips in its rather fine wing venation, its radial cell which is very long, straight, and narrow, and its hypopygial spine which is very slender, sharply pointed, slightly curved, and without a terminal tuft of hairs.