94 THE CANADIAN BNTOMOLOOIST 



A new genus, Situlaspis, has been named for Pscudodiaspis condaliae Fer- 

 ris, yet this species i.s no farther from the type of Pscudodiaspis than are the 

 others that are retained in that genus. 



In the tribe Aspidiotini there are before me specimens of Furcaspis bifor- 

 mis (Ckll.) which show that MacGillivray's conception of this genus is entirely 

 distorted. He has excluded from this genus two species, haematochroa Ckll. 

 and oceanica Lindinger, which seem really to belong to it and has referred them 

 to the genus Spinaspidiotns together with such a species as Aspidiotus pangocnsis 

 Doane and Ferris with which 1 can not believe that they have anything at all to 

 do. Conversely he has referred to Furcaspis such species as Aspidiotus jordani 

 Kuwana and A. juglans-rcgiac Comst. — a truly remarkable combination. 



He has, I say, placed Aspidiotus juglans-regiae in Furcaspis, while under 

 Qiiadraspidiotus appear A. glandulifcrus Ckll. and A. fcrnaldi Ckll, the former 

 of which is certainly and the latter almost certainly a synonym of juglans-regiae. 



The former Targionia hclianthi (Parrott) appears as the type of Rhiz- 

 aspidiotus, T. guticrrcaiac (Ckll.) as the type of Chorizas.pidiotus , and T. chcn- 

 opodii Marlatt as the type of Rcmotaspidiotus — yet the three are scarcely separ- 

 able specifically. 



Under Ncosignorctia appears A,%pidiotus yuccae Ckll., which I have else- 

 where referred to Pscudodiaspis and which is a Diaspidine form, and associated 

 with it is Aspidiotus yulupac Bremner which I regard as a synonym of A. osborni 

 Ckll. and Newell, the latter being placed under Diaspidiotus. 



Targionia yuccaruni (Ckll.) is made the type of a new genus, Targaspid- 

 iotus. I reaffirm my former opinion that it is a true Targionia. The species 

 descrbed by Marlatt as Aonidia junipcri (and which 1 believe to be a true 

 Aonidida) is referred to Targionia, while Aspidiotus shastac Coleman, of which 

 junipcri is a synonym, is referred to Gonaspidiotus in company with such strange 

 companions as Aspidiotus grauiincllus Ckll. 



Xcrophila,9^pis, referred by MacGillivray to the Aspidiotini, in my opinion 

 belongs in the Diaspidini. 



Under Conistockiclla appears Aspidiotus rivcrac Ckll. which belongs 

 "somewhere in the Diaspidini. 



Aspidiotus anonac Houser (which is a synonym of A. hcrculcanus Doane 

 and Haddcn) is made the type of the genus Clava-spis, while A. subsiuiilis Ckll. of 

 which anonac was formerly regarded as a variety is referred to Hcndaspidiotus. 

 While I can not consider that hcrculcanus is a "variety" of subsimili\ the two 

 are certainly so closely related that to place them in separate genera seems in- 

 excusable. Aspidiotus coursctiac Marlatt, which is another species of the same 

 group, is placed in Diaspidiotus, while Aspidiotus covillcae Ferris, which is 

 very close to if not identical with coursctiac, is placed as the type of a new genus, 

 Ferrisaspis. I must regretfully reject the honor thus done me. 



