AKT. 7 EEVISIOlSr OF COCCOPHAGUS COMPERE 55 



darker sensoria. Some specimens with all legs pallid white or yel- 

 low except foi" more or less blackish on the hind femora and the 

 basal part of fore coxae black. Others have the fore and middle 

 coxae black and hind femora black except the ends which are yel- 

 low. Again some specimens agree with the foregoing except that 

 the fore femora and tibiae are more or less suffused with blackish. 

 Femora of middle legs of all specimens entirely yellow. Tibiae 

 and tarsi of all legs yellow or pallid white except the apical tarsi, 

 which are fuscous, and the fore tibiae which are occasionally brown- 

 ish or suffused with blackish. 



Antennae as shown in Figure 40. 



Redescribed from paratypes received June 2, 1923, from C. P. 

 Clausen, who collected the material in the vicinity of Yokohoma, 

 Japan. Parasitic on Coccus 'pseudoinagnoliarum (Kuwana). 



28. COCCOPHAGUS HAWAIIENSIS Timberlake 



Plate 8, Figure 41 ; Plate 14, Figure 185 



Coccophagus haicaiiensis Timbeirlake, Proc. Plaw. Ent. Soc, vol. 6, No. 2, 1926, 

 pp. 315-17, fig. 3. 



This form has been adequately described by Timberlake. Typical 

 specimens are rather easily distinguished from C. japonicufi Compere 

 by the different coloration of the legs. There are, however, certain 

 specimens in the collection of the United States National Museum 

 showing intergradations and in one series of specimens, all of which 

 were supposedly reared from the same host, there are individuals that 

 agree with types of both C. japonicus and C. haivaiiensis. Typical 

 specimens of G. hawaiiensis are most readily distinguished from C. 

 japonicus by the coloration of the middle legs, C. hawaiietisis having 

 the middle femora more or less black or brown. 



Antennae as shown in Figure 41. Mandibles as shown in 

 Figure 185. 



The species studied by T. I. Ishii under the name C. lecanii 

 (Fitch) is referred to this form.^^ Gahan has shown that the records 

 of C. lecanii from Japan were based on an incorrect determination.^^ 

 His notes on the coloration of C. japonicus are in better agreement 

 with typical hawaiiensis than they are with typical G. japonicus. 

 However, it is not unlikely that the two forms are specifically alike 

 as supposed by Gahan. If there is a specific distinction, the species 

 studied by Ishii is to be referred to G. hawaiiensis rather than to G. 

 japonicus. 



^ Ishii, Jap. Bull. Imp. Plant Quar. Sta., No. 3, 1923, pp. 66-95, pi. 17, flgs. 1-8. 

 2» Gahan, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 28, No. 1, 1926, p. 24. 



