Maskell. — On Coccidae. 61 



few hairs. In all the specimens examined (ten), one of the 

 antennas was shorter and rather thicker than the other. Feet 

 absent. Mentum monomerous. Anal tubercles very minute, 

 each bearing a seta and a few spines ; anal ring bearing several 

 hairs, probably ten. Epidermis covered with large circular 

 simple spinnerets, which are very numerous on the abdominal 

 segments and less so on the thoracic : those on the cephalic 

 segments bear tubular processes. On the abdominal segments 

 there are two ventral rows of circular marks, larger than the 

 spinnerets, each containing many minute orifices ; but there 

 seem to be none of these on the cephalic region. 



Early stages and adult male not observed. 



Hub. On Prosojns jalifcra, Arizona, North America. 

 Mr. Koebele has furnished me with specimens. 



This insect is clearly allied to P. dendrobii, Douglas (Ent. 

 Mo. Mag., Aug., 1892, p. 207) ; but differs in a few particulars. 

 The test is lighter-coloured, more circular, and, from the cir- 

 cular form, appearing a good deal larger than in that species; 

 and the corrugations are much less distinct. The large round 

 marks mentioned above (or, as Mr. Douglas calls them, the 

 " perforated discs ") are absent from the anterior region ; and 

 I cannot see any trace of figure - of - eight spinnerets. I 

 shall not object if it is proposed merely to consider this a 

 large variety of P. dendrobii ; but for the present leave it as 

 distinct. I understand that Prosopis julifera is a South 

 American tree. 



Genus Planchoxia, Sign. Astekolecaniuai, Targioni. 



It seems now scarcely worth while to prolong a controversy 

 which has continued for the past few years amongst students 

 of Coccids regarding the exact status of the genus Planchonia. 

 In my paper of 1893 I discussed this question, and expressed 

 the opinion — first, that Asterolecanium was really only a 

 synonym of Planchonia ; and, second, that a large number 

 of described species were really only Planchonia fimbriata or 

 varieties of it. Some of my friends demur to these views, 

 having apparently very much reverence for external colour or 

 size. With regard to the first point, I am unable to depart 

 an inch from the position taken up last year — namely, that no 

 considerations whatsoever of a fancied "priority" ought to 

 weigh with us as against clearness and common-sense. I 

 agree entirely with a phrase of Mr. Douglas (in a letter to me 

 of this year) : " Par too many names have been admitted only 

 on what is termed 'prescriptive right,' but we should not go 

 on sinning with our eyes open." Asterolecanium conveys an 

 erroneous idea, and no fetish-worship of priority ought to 

 make us adhere to it. Consequently, I persist in discarding, 

 it altogether in favour of Planchonia. 



