THE CAXADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 93 



In the Leucaspidini two such utterly different specie? as L. indica Marlatt 

 and L. kelloggi Coleman are placed together in Suturaspis. The latter species, in 

 fact, does not even belong in this group for the adult female is not enclosed 

 within the exuvia of the preceding stage. Under the Lepidosaphini I have scar- 

 cely a large enough representation of the species to permit comments. I may 

 note, however, that the genus Aonidoinytilus is retained as separate on the basis 

 of the supposed absence of plates cephalad of the anal lobes — although these 

 plates are present as I have shown in another paper. Also Lcpidosaphcs mexi-  

 cana (Ckll.) which MacGillivray places in Triaspidis, really runs to Leonardaspis 

 if it runs any place. 



In the tribe Diaspidini the genus Diaspis is separated from Cockcrellaspis 

 and Epidiaspis by reason of its having the "Pygidium with caudal margin 

 deeply concave on meson with median pair of lobes in concavity. .," yet Diaspis 

 calyptroides Costa, the type of the genus, has not the slightest trace of such a 

 character and D. pJwradcndri Ckll, which MacGillivray retains in Diaspis has 

 the- median lobes extremely prominent. Diaspis toumeyi Ckll., which is referrec^ 

 to Pscudaulacaspis is a species of the same type as D. tcxcnsis Ckll. and D 

 mansanitae (Whitney) which are retained in Diaspis. 



I am entirely unable to concur in the separation of Bssigaspis. with 

 Protodiaspis agrifoliae Essig as type, and Obluctaspis, with P. lobata Ferris as 

 type, from Protodiaspis. On the other hand MacGillivray has retained in 

 Protodiaspis the species P. pnlchra Ferris which might well have been taken 

 out. Furthermore he has left in this genus, where they certainly do not belong 

 the two species edcntata Ferris and anomala Green, while the genus Anccpaspii>_ 

 to which they do belong, has been transferred to the Aspidiotini ! I consider 

 that Ancepaspis really represents a distinct group. 



The two genera Aulacaspis and Phenacaspis are apparently closely re- 

 lated, at least in part, for some of the species referred to the latter genus, such 

 as P. mischocarpi Ckll. and Rob., appear really to belong to the former. This 

 fact appears entirely to have escaped MacGillivray's notice. It has long been 

 apparent that the genus Chionaspis was in need of limitation. The process 

 was begun by Cooley and has been contained by MacGillivray with none too 

 fortunate results. Such peculiar forms as C. etriisca Leonardi and C. spartinae 

 Comst. are retained in Chionaspis when they might well have been removed, 

 while such a form as C. caryac Cooley which is really rather close to typical 

 Chionaspis is taken out. 



I believe that it has already been pointed out that Hemichionaspis is a 

 synonym of Pinnaspis. Certainly if specimens in my hands determined by 

 Cockerell as P. bu.vi be correctly named there is no doubt that it is. Yet 

 MacGillivray places Pinnaspis in the Lepidosaphini and Hemichionaspis in the 

 Jia; pidini. 



Chionaspis striata Newstead is made the type of the genus Linea^pis 

 and Lcncaspis cuprcssi Coleman the type of Cttpidaspis, yet the two species differ 

 only in the fact that the former possesses "genacerores". while the latter does not. 

 I regard them as congeneric and for them the name Lincaspis will stand. 



