THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 59 



Llaveia houvari (Sign.) and even more strongly developed with a distinct ten- 

 dency toward a cellular condition in GreeneUa dalbergicB (Green), although it 

 bears no setae. MacGillivray further states (p. 106) that the "pilacerores" are 

 peculiar to the Ortheziinae. Yet they constitute one of the points allying this 

 group with the Monophlebinae for exactly the same structures are present in, 

 for instance, Aspidoproctiis maximus Newst. and an apparently undescribed 

 species of Walkeriana as well as in other species. Furthermore, the presence 

 of compound eyes in the male of Orihezia is additional evidence to the same 

 end. 



The Kuwaniinae, Callapappinae, Margarodinae and Xylococcinae are separ- 

 ated from the Monophlebinae by the absence of mouthparts in the adult female. 

 Yet in five of the six genera included by MacGillivray in the first named group 

 the mouthparts are present in the adult female, a fact that one drawing con- 

 clusions from the literature alone would not be aware of because of deficiencies 

 in the published descriptions. I have elsewhere pointed out that in Xylococcus 

 macrocarpcB Coleman the mouthparts are at times developed in the adult female. 



The extraordinary development of the anterior legs in the genus Margarodes 

 is apparently an adaptive character. Certainly it is hardly sufficient to justify 

 the recognition of this genus as constituting a group equivalent in rank to the 

 Diaspinae. I have seen no examples of the Callapappinae, but judging'from the 

 descriptions they too are of a Monophleboid type. 



It is, of course, obvious that the group formed by the union of these six 

 so-called subfamilies is capable of being subdivided, but this will need to be 

 done on lines somewhat diff^erent from those that have previously been employed 

 and on the basis of an examination of material. 



In the description of the Monophlebinae (p. 62) it is stated that the adult 

 female never possesses an anal tube with "anacerores." Such a tube is well 

 developed in Giieriniella, which MacGillivray includes in this group. He also 

 includes under this subfamily the remarkable genus Stictococcus. I am unable 

 to see in this anything of a Monophleboid character, and would rather adopt 

 Lindinger's view, that it constitutes a separate subfamily. 



Under the subfamily Kuwaniinae the new genus Americocciis is proposed 

 for Matsucoccus fasciculensis Herbert. I have at hand specimens of this and 

 of M. matsumurce (Kuwana), and cannot concur in the erection of this genus. 



Concerning the restoration of the name Coccus to the genus which in the 

 Fernald Catalogue is called Daciylopius, I cannot comment as the literature 

 upon which a decision depends is not available. I may remark, however, that 

 as Mrs. Fernald's work gives every evidence of having been carefully done, I 

 should be inclined to accept her conclusions, at least until a careful review and 

 restatement of the case has been made. With MacGillivray's assignment of 

 this genus to a position between the Ortheziinae and the other Monophleboid 

 forms I cannot agree. While it may very well constitute a group by itself it 

 possesses tubular ducts of the type that occur in Eriococcus and related forms 

 and that I have not seen in any of the Monophleboid forms that I have ex- 

 amined. The association of Epicoccus with this genus is dubious. 



I have never been privileged to examine specimens of the female of Phena- 

 coleachia but I have at hand males sent me by Professor Cockerell as belonging 



