PALMER : COCCID GENUS PARLATORIA. 143 



length of the median plates, no difference can be observed be- 

 tween this group and proteus, this character being found va- 

 riable in both. Nor does the color of the body seem to be a 

 sufficiently constant character to distinguish it as a species. 

 The body color in proteus is said by Newstead (1901) to be va- 

 riable but usually purplish. Comstock (1881) says that in 

 pergandei it varies from nearly white to purplish. Whatever 

 difference there may be in the color of the body of the female 

 in these two groups would not seem, therefore, to be of specific 

 moment, though it might distinguish a variety. As to the five 

 groups of ventral glands, there has not been opportunity in 

 this study to investigate their constancy as a specific character- 

 istic, but they do not seem to be considered to be of specific 

 moment by Cockerell himself, for in 1897 he places euonymi, 

 which has no median glands, as a variety of thefe, which has the 

 median group represented. This cannot therefore distinguish 

 it as a different species from proteus. Neither does the pale, 

 flattened scale separate it from proteus, for in proteus pale, flat- 

 tened scales were also found upon observation of specimens at 

 hand. From study of pygidial characters no noticeable differ- 

 ences from proteus were found except the fourth lobe, which was 

 the same as that in pergandei ; but pergandei has already been 

 determined to be synonymous with proteus. 



The status of crotonis also is unsettled, and this affords an- 

 other argument for the synonymy oi proteus and pergaridei, and 

 the invalidity of the fourth-lobe characteristic, which is found 

 to be quite variable in this group. Crotonis has been de- 

 scribed by Douglas (1887) as a y a,riet j o( proteus . Later Cocker- 

 ell describes crotonis as a variety oi pergandei, but (in 1899, a) 

 he says that it appears to be the same as that described by 

 Douglas, whose article on the subject he had overlooked. How- 

 ever, in 1902 he makes it a distinct species, on what basis is 

 not known to the writer, the article not being available, but 

 his previous changes of opinion would seem to indicate that he 

 found no strong distinctive characteristics. The same un- 

 settled state of opinion is seen in the case of Newstead. In 

 1900 he gives crotonis as a variety of pergandei, and in 1901 as a 

 variety of proteus. From this it appears that crotonis has no 

 distinctive character to differentiate it as a species, and that 



