THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 91 



Bibliography. 



1. Bollman, Charles H. A Key to the North American Scolopendridae. Bull. 



46. U. S. Natl. Mus.. pp. 168-180, 1893. 



2. Bollman, Charles H. A List of the Myriapoda of Minnesota. Bull. 46, 



U. S. Natl. Mus., pp. 181-183, 1893. 



3. Chamberlin, Ralph V. The Chilopoda of California, II. Pomona Jour. 



of Entom., 3:470-479, 1911. 



4. Chamberlin, Ralj)!! \\ The Lithobiid Genera Nampabius. Caribius, Tida- 



biiis, and Sigibiits. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard, 57:39-104, Pis. 

 1-5, 1913. 



5. Cragin, F. W. First Contribution to a Knowledge of the Myriapoda of 



Kansas. Bull. 4, Washburn Lab. of Nat. Hist., pp. 143-145, 1885. 



6. Gunthorp, florace. Annotated List of the Diplopoda and Chilopoda, with 



a Key to the Myriapoda of Kansas. Kans. Univ. Sci. Bull., 7:161-182, 

 PI. 20, 1913. 



7. Meinert, Fr. Myriapoda Musei Cantabrigensis, Mass. Part 1, Chilopoda. 



Proc. Amer' Phil. Soc, 21:161-233, 1885. 



8. Wood, Horatio C. Descriptions of new species of Scolopcndra in the col- 



lection of the Academy. Proc. Phil. Acad., pp. 10-15, 1861. 



NOTES ON COCCIDAE VIII. (IIEMIPTERA). 



BY G. F. FERRIS, 

 Stanford University, Calif. 



A Review of MacGillivray's "The Coccidae." 

 (Continued from page 61). 

 The establishment of a separate- subfamily for the i)ecuHar genus 

 Apiomorpha is perhaps justified, but I cannot agree with MacGillivray in 

 assigning to the Apiomorphinae such forms as Ascelis and OpiMlioscelis. The 

 latter I suspect to be related to Capulinia, which MacGillivray refers to the 

 Cylindrococcinae. As to the first named 1 have ,'-"i)ecin''.ens Init no opinions con- 

 cerning them except that I cannot connect them with any of the other Coccidae. 



The subfamily Cylindrococcinae is simply a heterogeneous assemblage 

 of doubtful forms. I am unable to sec any special connection between such 

 genera as Halinwcoccns, Phocnicococcus. Capulinia and Cylindrococcus, of all of 

 which I have specimens. But I must confess to a total lack of knowledge as 

 to what should be done with them. MacGillivray has retained Brittin's genus 

 Scntarc in the Conchaspinae, yet Green, who has examined specimens, states 

 that it does not belong in the group and refers the single included species to 

 Rhisococcus. Judging from Brittin's figures and description I am inclined to 

 agree with Green that it does not belong in the Conchaspinae. However, I be- 

 lieve the genus to be valid, although I cannot say where it belongs. Following 

 Newstead MacGillivray records the presence of abdominal spiracles in this sub- 

 family. Judging from ])rei)arations that are of the best I cannot agree that 

 the structures in ([ucstion are spiracles. There is no visible opening and the 

 appearance is the same as that of the pair of ventral tubercles that appears 

 for instance in Kutvanina. 



