Brittin. — Some Coccidae in the Canterbury Museum. 425 



material difference would, of course, at once place the insect in tlie genus 

 Ripersia, and, if all the other characteristics are the same, woiild agree with 

 my description of Ripersia globatus, published in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47, 

 p. 155, which I think will eventually become a synonym of Maskell's 

 species imcler the name of Ripersia poae. 



Eriochiton spinosus Mask. 



Ctenochiton spinosus Mask., Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 11 (1879), p. 212. 



Eriochiton spinosus Mask., Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 19 (1887), 



p. 47. Lecanium arrnatus Brittin, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 47 



(1915), p. 152. 



This species is undoubtedly the same as the one reported by me under 



the name of Lecanium armatus. Maskell's diagnosis and diagrams of 



E. spinosus are very imperfect, and it was little wonder that I was unable 



to recognize it from his description. In vol. 11, p. 212, when describing 



it under the name of C. spinosus, he states that the abdominal lobes are 



as usual. This is not correct, and, in fact, the lobes appear to be very 



unusual for the genus Ctenochiton. Again, in E. spinosus the anal ring 



is situated between the lower half of the abdominal lobes. Since my last 



paper was read before this society I have been able to find specimens covered 



with a thin cottony test, similar to that of an Eriococcus. These specimens 



will, I think, turn out to be Maskell's E. hispidus (Trans. N.Z. Inst., 



vol. 19, p. 47). They appear to agree very well with his description, but 



the difference is so slight that they may be eventually placed as a variety of 



E. spinosus rather than as a distinct species. Up to the present time I 

 have been unable to find any signs of a test covering my original species. 

 Maskell's slide in the Museum is a typical example of the species. 



Mytilaspis drimydis Mask., Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 11 (1879), p. 196. 



I have carefully examined the slide of this species deposited in the 

 Museum, and can come to no other conclusion than that it is the second 

 instar of one of the Fiorinia, and most probably F. stricta. The extremity 

 of the pgyidium, with its broad flat squames, small narrow lobes, and the 

 presence of few dorsal spinnerets, together with the absence of grouped 

 circumgenital glands, all point to its being the early stage of the second 

 instar of some species of the Fiorinia. I should mention that Maskell's 



F. stricta and F. asteliae have been both placed in the genus Leucaspis.* 



Subfam. DIASPINAE. 

 Genus Odonaspis ? 

 Odonaspis ? leptocarpi sp. nov. 



Puparia of the females sitiiated underneath' the ligules of the plant 

 on which they live ; they are always found packed closely together, and 

 consequently it is very hard to distinguish the separate pxiparia. Ventral 

 scale complete, white, and remains firmly attached to the plant ; dorsal 

 portion white, elongate. Exuviae yellow, and appear to be situated rather 

 to one side at the anterior extremity. Dorsal portion generally attached 

 to ligule, and separates from the ventral scale on detaching the ligule from 

 the stem, thus leaving the insect uncovered. 



* E. E. Green, F.E.S. : " Some Remarks on the Coccid Genus Leucaspis, with 

 Descriptions of Two New Species." Trans. Entom. Soc, London, February, 1914, 

 pt. iii, iv. 



