AMERTOAN HOMOPTERA. 871 



NOTE 



The structure of the feet above noted, is very peculiar and interesting, and 

 in a measure, appears to separate this insect from the Coccidce proper. Its 

 scale-like habitation would appear, from casual observations, to be the insect 

 itself, and, therefore, to retain it in that family; but a thorough examination 

 proves the insect to be distinct from the scale, which it only uses for a habita- 

 tion ; therefore, truly, also appears to separate it from the Coccidce oi former au- 

 thors, which is a scale-like insect, and this a scale-making insect. In that, the 

 scale is the body of the female, while in this the scale is a constructed roof or 

 habitation, and is as distinct from the insect that lives beneath, as our houses 

 are distinct from ourselves. 



If this insect is never found in the winged state, (and after the most diligent 

 search for years I have never found a winged insect, or a male of any descrip- 

 tion, and I am entirely convinced that the females were fertile this year with- 

 out copulation) — we can only have these larvse for examining the tarsi, the fe- 

 males being footless, maggot-like bodies. 



The older Authors were men of close research and untiring observation ; 

 against them we have nothing to say, but it is proper to infer, that the charac- 

 ters of the Coccidce were correctly established ; however, I am free to confess 

 that my research has not been sufficiently extended to verify their results. 

 Their observations were conducted in a different quarter of the globe. For 

 me to condemn them by changing the characters they established for Coccidce^ 

 so as to make it so different a thing as to admit this "Apple Bark-louse," would 

 be sacrilege. They created the family Coccidce for the reception of scale-like in- 

 sects, although in Aspidiotus the female is fixed and immoveable, yet in other 

 genera she may be moveable. But the characters which are permanent are, 

 tarsi with owe joint and one claw. To this I can find no exception in the old 

 landmarks of this family. Here we have a scale-building insect, but the in- 

 sect itself is no more scale-like, than is a dipterous larva; neither has this in- 

 sect any tarsal claw. 



In classification, then, how can we retain this insect under the Coccidce? To 

 do so is a manifest error, without making additions to the characters of this 

 family. Can we change the characters of a genus without examining all its 

 species, and determining that they all harmonize with the change? The ob- 

 server cannot do this, widely diffused as they are, in the four quarters of the 

 world ; closet observation here is useless, the insect must be studied in its liv- 

 ing, active state, in its native haunts, daily, for at least an entire season. 



If we have a right, from examining a single species, to add to the characters 

 of a genus, we have a right, also, to deduct therefrom. And such licence would 

 evidently undermine the very foundations of science. 



Hence, our only remedy is to construct a genus with characters that will ad- 

 mit the insect in question. Some may argue that this insect for ages, by the 

 most profound entomologists, has been esteemed atypical representative of the 

 Coccidce. What matters that? If we have been six thousand years in arriving 

 at a true knowledge of the natural history of this otherwise well known insect, 

 shall we, therefore, on account of a veneration for time-honored names, among 

 the cob-webs of error and obscurity, continue in error, by retaining it in a fa- 

 mily whose characters no more accord with its true anatomical structure, than 

 they do with that of a dipterous larva ? We have a plain and simple remedy, 

 and but one — to the classical mind a demonstrated truth. — Create a new genus, 



