258 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



(8) Lecanium hemisphiericum, Targ. On a house-fern belonging to 

 Mrs. Fred. Lohman, in Las Cruces, N. M., I found this species and 

 Dadylopius longisptnus, Targ. These Coccids will not live out-of-doors 

 in the climate of Las Cruces, so far as we know. 



(9) Lecanium msignicoia, Craw, emend. Mr. Ehrhorn sends me 

 this, on Fhitis insig/i/s, from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. The 

 specimens belong to Pliysokerines, and we must write the species 

 PJiysokermes i?isignico/a (Craw). 



(iii.) Fuhijiaria, section of P. camellicola. 



(10) Fnh'inaria camellicola. Sign., P. nrbicola, Ckll., P. simulans, 

 Ckll. These species need some further elucidation. The second is only 

 known on Capsicum in Jamaica ; the third only in Trinidad. We are 

 supposed to have P. camellicola in this country, but I have never seen 

 any with 6-jointed antennae, as described by Signoret. Here is a short 

 description of our insect : — 



$ remains brownish afcer boiling in potash. Tarsal digitules 

 distinct and well-formed. Digitules of claw extremely laige and stout, 

 very broad at ends. A very long hair on end of trochanter. Marginal 

 spines numerous and long. Lateral (stigmatal) incisions each with three 

 spines, brownish and stout, one large, the other two small. Antennae 

 8-jointed : 3 longest ; 2, 4 and 8 subequal and next longest ; 5 shorter 

 than 4 ; 6 and 7 equal and shortest ; 2 with a very long hair ;it the end; 

 3 with a moderately long hair at end ; 5 with two very long hairs at end; 

 7 with a long hair ; 8 with many long hairs. 



Hah.: Macon, Ga., Apr. 15, 1892, on Euonymus. (Div. Ent., No. 

 5029 ; received through Dr. Riley.) 



Just lately, Prof Townsend has found the same species in abundance 

 at Brownsville, Texas. The antennae are 8-jointed, as in the Macon 

 ones, formula 32 (41) (58) 67. The name of the food plant is not 

 known, but it is not camellia, nor capsicum. 



Notwithstanding the external similarity {which counts for little in 

 Pulvina7-ia) , I do not see how we can reconcile the above with Signoret's 

 account of camellicola, assuming the latter to be correct. \\\ 1886 

 Douglas treated of camellicola, and perhaps threw new light on the matter, 

 but I have not now access to his paper. 



If we thus assume that our insect is not camellicola, is it urbicola or 

 simulans ? Unfortunately, we know these latter only from one locality 

 e^ch, and ^.re not well-informed about their possible range of varij^tion, 



