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

These are facts that make us doubt the validity of A. kiefferi. Therefore, A. kiefferi (Cabrera, 1897) should be considered as a syn. nova of Andricus quercustozae (Bosc, 1792). The host plant, Q. suber, mentioned by Cabrera (1897) is probably a host plant misidentification, like it has been commented for Andricus dentimitratus. Andricus solitarius (Fonscolombe, 1832) and A. vilarrubiae Tavares, 1930 Andricus vilarrubiae was described by Tavares (1930) on the basis of one female reared from a gall collected in Vic (Catalunya, Spain) by Vilarrúbia. Later, the collector redescribed this species (Vilarrúbia 1930, Vilarrúbia and Vilarrúbia 1933). The gall location of this species is very curious. Vilarrúbia (1956) never found this gall alone, in isolation from Andricus coriarius (Hartig, 1843) galls. Andricus vilarrubiae galls collected by him in the type locality were found only inside A. coriarius galls (more than in 50% of A. coriarius galls). In the original descriptions females have 15-segmented antenna (Vilarrúbia 1930, Vilarrúbia and Vilarrúbia 1933). We captured several adult specimens and collected many galls of A. vilarrubiae in Andorra, Spain, and France (by J. Pujade-Villar) and found females' antenna to be 13-segmented. However, females of this species collected in Greece and kindly sent to us by E. Kwast (Niederlausitzer Heidemuseum, Spremberg, Germany) have also 15-segmented antenna like in the original description. Females of Andricus solitarius usually have 14-segmented antenna. However, in some specimens of many Andricus species, the suture between the thirteenth and fourteenth antennái segments might be hardly visible or even invisible and, thus, the number of antennái segments may be miscounted. Therefore, for many species, the number of antennái segments is of no real diagnostic value, as in the case of A. vilarrubiae and A. solitarius. Andricus vilarrubiae is the asexual gall of Andricus solitarius included inside an A. coriarius gall. It is due to a coinciding egg-laying into the same oak bud by two gall wasp species. This is another example of competition between Cynipini. Thus, Andricus vilarrubiae should be considered as a syn. nova of Andricus solitarius and this species has a variable number of antennái segments, between 13 and 15, normally 14. Acknowledgements — We express our deepest appreciation to J. L. Nieves-Aldrey (MNCN of Madrid, Spain) for loaning us the type material of Cynips kiefferi Cabrera. We are also indebted to C. Villemant-Ait Lemkaden (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, France), J. Austin (NHM of London, UK), and N. Mercader (University of Barcelona, Spain) for helping us with some literature mentioned in this paper. We also thanks D. Bellido and P. Ros-Farré (University of Barcelona, Spain) for their comments on the manuscript. REFERENCES Ambrus, B. (1974): Cynipida-gubacsok - Cecidia Cynipidarum. — Magyarország Állatvilága (Fauna Hungáriáé), XII, 2. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 120 pp. Anthoine (1794): Cynipedologie du Chene roure, Quercus Robur. — Nouveau Journal de Phisique LXIV, Pl. II Journalde Physicue, de Chinie, d'Histoire naturelle par Lametherie, Paris, 1: 34-39. Bálás, G. v. (1941): Pótlás „Magyarország Gubacsai"-hoz. (Nachtrag zu "Die Galle Ungarns"). — Budapest, 197 pp.