60 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 



to P. zealandica. On the basis of these males and of the meager description 

 given by Maskell I should regard this genus as a Pseudococcine form of the 

 general type of Puto. The males of the^e two genera are practically ident'cal. 

 I see no reason for retaining the subfamily Phenacoleachiinae. 



The subfamily Eriococcinae as understood by MacGillivray is certainly 

 an unnatural group, and as he has indicated (p. 126) includes at least two groups 

 of genera. MacGillivray's remarks (pp. 122-3) indicate that he is not aware 

 that the dorsal ostioles or "labial" do not occur in Eriococciis and the genera 

 related to it. They are in fact confined to the genera of which Pseudococciis 

 may be taken as the type, and I regard their possession as of sufficient im- 

 portance to justify a distinction between these two groups. On the other 

 hand, MacGillivray has excluded from the Eriococcinae the genus Kermes, 

 which I regard as strictly Eriococcine. I shall consider this point under the 

 discussion of the subfamily Kermesinse. 



The subfamily or group associated with Eriococcus includes the following 

 genera of the position of which I feel sufficiently sure to hazard an opinion: 

 Atriplicia, Cryptococcns, Eriococcus, Fonscolombia, Gymnococcus, Gossyparia, 

 Kermes, Micrococcus, Olliffiella, Rhizococcus and Xerococcus. The group as- 

 sociated with Pseudococciis contains the following: Antonina { = Chaetococcus) , 

 Cry ptori Persia, Erium, Geococcus, Helicoccus, Heterococcus, Lachnodius (at least 

 in part), Macrocepicoccus, Naiacoccus, Natalensia, Nesococcus, Phenacoccus, 

 Porococcus, Pseiidococcus, Puto { = Ceroputo = Macrocerococcus) , Riper sia, Riper- 

 siella, Rhizoecus, Sphaerococcus , Trionymus and Tylococcus. 



Ehrhornia, Paludicoccus and Kuwanina are of doubtful affinities, but I 

 feel sure do not belong in either of the above groups. Cissococcus, as I have 

 pointed out in an earlier number of these notes is a Lecaniine form. The species 

 described by Ehrhorn as Cissocossus (?) oahuensis has since been referred by 

 Ehrhorn to a new genus, Phyllococcus, which has been overlooked by Mac- 

 Gillivray. I have at hand specimens of this species but prefer not to express 

 any opinion as to its relationships. 



The other genera included by MacGillivray in his Eriococcinae I have not 

 seen specimens of, nor in some cases the descriptions, and I refrain from com- 

 menting upon them. 



I may note a misstatement on page 142. It is there said that "Ferris 

 believes that the American Phenacoccus stachyos Ehrh. is congeneric" with 

 Coccura comari (Sulc). It is Heliococcus bohemicus Sulc with which I have 

 compared P. stachyos. 



In regard to the Tachardiinae I may simply note that the statement that 

 the body is not provided with pores, "cerores," or with tubular ducts, "ceratubae," 

 except on the stigmatic and anal processes is entirely erroneous as an examina- 

 tion of carefully stained specimens will quickly show. MacGillivray has adopted 

 Cockerell's groups and although these will stand they will not do so on the 

 basis of the characters used. 



The keys and discussion of the Lecaniinae are based entirely upon the 

 literature and no new genera are named. I may note only that the anomalous 

 genus Aclerda, which probably does not belong in this group is included with- 

 out special comment, and that it is stated (p. 175) that in this genus the anal 

 cleft and opercula are wanting. The anal cleft is present and bears at its anterior 



