AKT. 7 BEVISIOjST op COCCOPHAGUS COMPERE 59 



males from Filippia carissae Brain, Durban, Natal, September 1925 

 and July 1926. 



D2. COCCOPHAGUS LECANII (Fitch) 



Plate 11, Figure 131 



Platygaster Jecanii Fitch, Fifth Rept. Insects, New York, 1858, pp. 25-26. 

 Coccophagus lecanii A. E. Smith, Amer. Nat., Phil., vol. 12, 1878, p. 661, fig. 6, 



a-b. — Smith, Seventh Rept. State Ent., 111., 1878, p. 130. — Putman, Proc. 



Davenport Acad. Nat. Sci., vol. 2, 1879, pp. 297, 332-33.— HoWzUto, U. S. 



Dept. Agr. Rept. Ent. for 1880, 1881, p. 357. 

 Coccophagus ater Howaed, Rept. Ent. U. S. Dept. Agr. for 1880, 1881, pp. 359-60. 

 Coccophagus cognatus Howard, Rept. Ent. U. S. Dept. Agr. for 1880, 1881, p. 359. 

 Coccaphagus flavoscutellum Ashmead, Florida Agr., vol. 4, 1881, p. 65. 

 Coccophagus vividus Howard, U. S. Dept. Agr. Div. Ent., Bull. 5, 18S5, p. 25. 

 Coccophagus cognatus Howard, U. S. Dept. Agr. Div. Ent. Bull. 5, 1885, p. 25. — 



Hubbard, Insects Affecting the Orange, U. S. Dept. Agr. Div. Ent., 1885. 

 Coccophagus californicus Howard, Insect Life, vol. 1, 1889, p. 269. 

 Coccophagus lecanii Gahan, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 65, art. 4, 1924, p. 12; 



Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 28, No. 1, 1926, p. 24; Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 



vol. 71, art 4, 1927, pp. 24-25. 

 *? Coccophagus cow peri Girault, Descriptiones Stellarum Novarum, 1917, p. 1. 

 Coccophagus coccidis Girault Descriptiones Stellarum Novarum, 1917, p. 2. 



Except for C. californicus Howard, the above synonomy is that 

 given by Howard and Gahan. In the literature C. lecanii (Fitch) 

 is indirectly synonymized with C. scutellaris (Dalman) through G. 

 flavoscutelluTn Masi (not Ashmead). The chain of synonomy link- 

 ing lecanii (Fitch) and scutellans (Dalman) is undoubtedly incor- 

 rect, for Dalman's original description applies to the species that 

 has previously been known as Coccphagus lunulatus Howard. 



In the past, Coccophagus lecanii (Fitch) has led to more confusion 

 and synonomy than has any other species and unless more refined 

 and exact methods of study are developed, it is likely to continue 

 to be an enigma. The characters used in this paper to distinguish 

 the females of certain so-called species are not essentially different 

 from the characters used by Howard to separate his departures that 

 have been synonymized. In this study, however, with one excep- 

 tion both sexes are represented in the series of specimens and even 

 though the females are similar enough to cause confusion the males 

 are strikingly different. In certain groups of insects it has been 

 found that polymorphic males from different geographical localities 

 are referrable to one species and if this proves to be the case in 

 regard to Coccophagus^ then the so-called species C. cowperi Girault, 

 C. pulvinariae, new species, C. isipingoensis, new species, G. cubaen- 

 sis, new species, and C. eleaphilus will probably be relegated to 

 synonomy. It is possible that the forms of the C. lecanii group can 

 not be accurately defined or understood on the basis of taxonomic 

 studies and that it will be necessary to discover their genetic rela- 



