424 Transactions. 



sliglitly in the size and colour of the sac. ... I leave ail these as 

 variations of one species, chiefly on account of the antennae, which I find 

 similar in all, with 6 joints, of which 5 are subequal ; but the 3rd joint is 

 longer, usually equal to any two of the others. This character, together 

 with the slenderness of the spines, distinguishes E. pallidus from E. multi- 

 spinus, irrespective of variations in the sac, which are not, indeed, im- 

 portant." 



There can be no doubt after reading these different descriptions that 

 Maskell's first description of E. rnuUispinus undoubtedly referred to what 

 he afterwards called E. pallidus, the antennae of which have 6 joints, the 

 3rd being the longest, and the spines long and slender. On the other hand, 

 the antennae of E. midtispinus consist of 6 subequal joints, and the spines 

 are, in comparison, short and broad. 



Now, this alteration in the diagnosis would not have been of so much 

 consequence but for the fact that Mr. Maskell made the same mistake when 

 forwarding specimens to others who were working on the Coccidae, and the 

 slide in the Museum shows that such a mistake has evidently been made, 

 and it needs only a slight glance at this specimen to see that the 3rd joint 

 of the antennae is much longer than any of the others and that the spines 

 are long and slender, both of which facts point to its being E. pallidus. 

 Unfortunately, there are no slides in the Museum labelled " E. pallidus," so 

 that the two species cannot be compared. 



Some time ago I forwarded to Mr. E. E. Green, F.E.S., one of the 

 leading English authorities on the Coccidae, some specimens, under the 

 name of E. midtispinus, and received an answer saying that it differed 

 in several important characteristics from Maskell's ■tmdtispinus . On my 

 still pointing out several characteristics mentioned by Maskell in Trans. 

 N.Z. Inst., vol. 23, I received the following, which I here quote : " I see 

 that you are right about the 6-jointed antennae of E. midtispinus, but on 

 comparing your specimen with typical examples (received from Maskell 

 himself) I am still of opinion that your insect is distinct. The character 

 and arrangement of the spines is very different in the two insects. If the 

 difference should be considered to be insufficient to warrant the erection 

 of a new species, your insect should at least be distinguished by a varietal 

 name." I have lately forwarded Mr. Green specimens of both species, 

 and at the same time pointed out the mistake made by Mr. Maskell when 

 describing his species. 



Dactylopius poae Mask., Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 11 (1879), p. 220 ; 

 vol. 23 (1891), p. 23. 

 This is another species that will want investigating. The normal generic 

 characters of this genus are as follows : Adult female with antennae of 

 8 joints, the last joint almost invariably longer than the penultimate ; 

 mentum biarticulate ; legs persistent ; anal lobes small or rudimentary. 

 In the genus Ripersia the antennae consist of 6 joints, rarely of 5 or 7. 

 Maskell's diagnosis of D. poae, given in Trans., N.Z. Inst., vol. U, p. 220, 

 is practically useless as a means of identification. In his book on " New 

 Zealand Scale Insects " he simply mentions that the antennae consist of 

 8 joints, and are very short. The slide in the Museum labelled " D. poae" 

 contains only the anterior portion of the insect, with the antennae, 

 rostrum, and anterior pair of legs. I made a very careful examination 

 of the antennae, and found that it consisted of only 6 joints, the 3rd 

 and apical joints being longest and about equal to each other. This 



