60 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



acters. I found, even after examining many specimens, but one 

 antenna ; but this was clearly seen to be y-jointed, not 8-iointed, 

 as in rugosum and persicce. I found no legs in position, but 

 several fairly well-preserved ones broken from the bodies. These 

 showed the long digitules, but I did not get a sight of the peculiar 

 posterior tarsus. The following description gives the details I found: 



Lecanium from Queenston. 

 ? . Antenna 7-jointed, 3 longest, 4 a little shorter, 7 a. little shorter 

 than 4, 2 shorter than 4, 5 and 6 shortest and about equal. Formula 

 approximately 34721 (56). * 



Legs well-developed ; trochanter and coxa each with a hair \ femur 

 rather slender, not very much longer than tibia ; tibia about one-third 

 longer than tarsus. Tarsal digitules slender, very long. Digitules of 

 claw also long, extending considerably beyond tip of claw, with quite 

 large knobs. Claw nearly straight. Derm with large gland-pits, often 

 double. Anal plates with their caudolateral sides longer than the 

 cephalolateral. 



Of species with 7-jointed antennae, there is L. rotwidiim ; but this is 

 out of the question, from its globose, nearly smooth scale. But how about 

 L. juglandis (Juglafidifex)^ with which I have identified a species sent 

 by Dr. Lintner from Rochester, N. Y., on plum? The antenna of this 

 Rochester insect is just like the antenna of the Queenston species ; in 

 fact, the microscopical characters of these forms are so much alike as to 

 strongly suggest their identity. Yet the scales seem decidedly different. 



Some one may here say. How about the Lecanium cerasifex, Fitch., 

 1856? This was said to be hemispherical, nearly the size and shape of a 

 half-pea, black, more or less mottled with pale dull yellow dots. I confess 

 I do not know what this is, and look with some doubt on identifications 

 of it from such a description as Fitch gave. Until some one has given us 

 a better description from the type, I think cerasifex must be put in the 

 doubtful list. There is no good reason for supposing it identical with the 

 Queenston scale. 



The solution of the question here raised must probably be left in the 

 hands of one who can study the insect, in all its stages, on the spot. The 

 following questions might be addressed to a suitable enquirer : — 

 (i.) Z. rugosum, hitherto known from France, closely resembles our 



insect in outward form. Can the diversities in microscopic details 



be reconciled ? 



I 



