PART II. SYSTEMATIC DATA
Our conclusions on the nature and origin of the species of Cynips given in Part I of this study have been based upon the data now presented as the routine taxonomic treatment of the varieties, species, and subgenera of the gall wasp genus Cynips.
Cynips, as here defined, is a group of 93 highly specialized, oak inhabiting gall wasps, 26 of which have previously been included in this genus. Of the remaining species, 19 have been previously assigned to other genera, and 48 are here described as new.
Since we are dealing with the oldest name in the family Cynipidae, it is of moment to review the varied history of the nomenclature and of the taxonomic concept. This history begins with the Linnean adoption of the term (1758:553) to cover essentially all of the insects which he knew from plant galls. His Cynips, with 14 specific names, included species that we now place in six distinct genera distributed among the three tribes of the Cynipidae, as well as several species of chalcidoids, some of them parasites bred from galls produced by tenthredinids (Hymenoptera) and by cecidomyids (Diptera). Geoffroy, a contemporary of Linnaeus, made a better distinction (1762) between gall makers and parasites, altho calling the parasites Cynips and the gall makers Diplolepis. During the next century several attempts were made to fix the type of Cynips, but the only designation acceptable under the present International Rules was made by Westwood, in 1840, who named folii, probably the best known of all European gall wasps, as the type of the genus. Detailed discussion of this designation is given in the introduction to the European subgenus in this study. European usage largely followed Westwood's designation until Mayr, in 1871, used Förster's Dryophanta in precisely the sense defined by Westwood for Cynips, and Mayr's usage was adopted for the next half century. In 1910, however, Dalla Torre and Kieffer returned to Geoffroy's Diplolepis, and several recent authors have followed this practice, altho the usage is not approved by the findings of any of those (Morice and Durant, Rohwer and Fagan, Bradley, etc.) who have critically reviewed the question.
(79)
