S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 61. (Budapest, 2000)

164 J. Pujade-Villar, G. Melika and Gy. Csóka Andricus viscosus Nieves Aldrey, 1986: 117 (new name for C. mayri; homonym with name proposed by Dalla Torre 1893 after Benson 1953). Andricus gallaeviscosus (Fairmaire): Benson 1953; Melika and Csóka 1998. Gall. Many authors have described the gaudy gall of this species and confused it with other species of Andricus genus (= Cynips sensu authors, not Linnaeus). Among the misidentifications we found Diplolepis quercus tojae (Fabricius) by Boyer de Fonscolombe (1832) and Diplolepis quadrum Fabricius by Bertoloni (after Kieffer 1897-1901). According to Dalla Torre's catalogue (1893), the denomination of Aphilotrix tojae (B. de Fonsc.) was published by Lichtenstein (1877), but this statement is incorrect, since after consulting the original note by Lichtenstein (1877), we did not find this name. Typographical corrections made by Dalla Torre (1893) for Andricus tojae (B. de Fonsc.) and Cynips viscosae (Fairmaire) are also unjustified. In the earlier denominations (Diplolepis umbraculus Olivier, 1791; Diplolepis gallaeumbraculatae Anthoine, 1794; Cynips gallae-viscosae Fairmaire, 1882) adult wasps were described first which belongs to an inquiline and not to gall-inducer. Thus, these names cannot be used (Kieffer 1897a; 1897-1901). Fairmaire (1882) mentioned in his description that wasps he reared have 13-segmented antenna and a very short hypopygium. On the basis of the last character Kieffer (1897a, 1897-1901) stated that adults probably belong to the Synergus genus. However, the main diagnostic difference between two inquiline genera, Synergus and Saphonecrus, is the number of antenna! segments in the female (14 in Synergus and 13 in Saphonecrus (Pujade-Villar and NievesAldrey 1990). Furthermore, none of the known Saphonecrus species have a coloration given by Fairmaire (1882). Thus, we think that if adults were actually Synergus, then Fairmaire miscounted the number of antennái segments. Therefore, on the basis of Fairmaire's description this specimen is supposed to be Synergus gallaepomiformis (Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1832) or S. umbraculus (Olivier, 1791). First authors who considered this gall as a variety of an existing species were Mayr (1870) and, later Lichtenstein (1882) but they gave no name. Solla (1892) described and drew Mayr's undescribed variety as a "new gall". Rejtő (1887) described this gall variety as Cynips glutinosa Giraud var. dentimitrata. Bálás (1941) raised it to species category what was followed by some succeeding authors (Ambrus 1974, Dauphin and Aniotsbehere 1993). Ignorance of Rejtő's paper led Kieffer (1897a) to the description of a new species, Cynips mayri. Many successors used this name (Kieffer 18976, Kieffer 1897-1901, Dalla Torre and Kieffer 1902, Houard 1908, Dalla Torre and Kieffer 1910, Codina 1920, Cogolludo 1921, Tavares 1931, Vilarrúbia 1930, 1936, and many others). Rohwer and Fagan (1917) transferred this species to the Adleria genus together with many other species of the former Cynips (sensu Authors, not Linnaeus). Later, Benson (1953) synonymized Adleria to Andricus and, thus A. mayri (Kieffer, 1897) became a homonym of A. mayri (Wachtl 1879). Nieves-Aldrey (1986) incorrectly proposed again a new combination, Andricus viscosus Nieves-Aldrey (earlier already made by Benson), in order to solve the homonymy between this species and Andricus mayri (Wachtl, 1879). He proposed this name for Kieffer's species, but doing so he entered in homonymy with the name proposed by Dalla Torre (1893) (after Benson 1953). So, this denomination is not valid despite it has been used by different authors in the last years (Nieves-Aldrey 1987, Pujade-Villar 1994a, b, Csóka 1997, and many others). According to the above-mentioned facts, the species recently named as Andricus gallaeviscosus (Fairmaire) (Melika and Csóka 1998) should be renamed as Andricus den-