Nov., '03] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 289 



species, but I in turn must beg to republish the same in part, 

 for reasons that will be clearly apparent to the reader. 



" Eulecanium quercitronis Fitch on Oncrcus albi at Catawba, 

 Ohio, July 29, 1902. The locality and scale are new to the 

 Ohio list." But for the errors that follow, this might pass 

 uncriticised, but there is a Catawba, Catawba Station and Ca- 

 tawba Island in Ohio, the latter along the south shore of Lake 

 Erie, and the two former fully 135 miles to the south. Which 

 is it? 



" Eulecanium fletcheri Ckll., on cedar at Catawba, I. S. O., 

 July 29. 1902," was probably intended for Catawba Island, 

 but to one not perfectly familiar with Ohio, the locality, as 

 given, would be too obscure to be of any value. 



" Aspidiolus perniciosus Comst., kilmarneck willow (Suti.i' 

 caprte var. pendea) at Pinesville, O., July 19, 1902." The 

 typographical error in the use of 'kilmarneck" for kilmar- 

 nock does not materially obscure the author's meaning, but the 

 location, " Pinesville" is unknown in Ohio, though there are 

 localities of this name in several other States. 



" Aspidiotus ostrczformis Curtis, on willow, Pomesville, O., 

 July 19, 1902. A new locality and food plant for Ohio list." 

 The last statement is again literally true, as this species had 

 not been reported from willow in the State given, and there is 

 no such place in Ohio or the United States, for that matter, so 

 that the locality given for both this species and Mytilaspis 

 iilini L. , might better have never been published. Besides, 

 the occurrence of this last species, anywhere in Ohio, is no 

 more important than the finding of the bed bug in Boston. 

 Many others of the so called leading errors are errors in citing 

 wrong authorities, in which we followed Prof. Cockerell's 

 "Check List of the Coccidge " in the Bulletin of the Illinois 

 State Laboratory of Natural History. 



It is to be hoped that, when Mr. King attempts to repub- 

 lish another such list, he will revise, and possibly rerevise, 

 his localities before allowing his manuscript to go to print. 

 And, while I have the greatest regard for his perseverance 

 and industry in the face of difficulties that few can appreciate, 

 I must be excused for still continuing to apply old and well 



