PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



VOL. 60. 



54 



seems to the writers impossible to justify the crediting of this generic 

 name to him. In view of Maskell's statement that E. eucalypti by 

 the characters of its sac and of its dorsal conical spines, belongs to 

 that section of the genus of which the New Zealand E . multispmosus 

 may be taken as the type," it would seem to follow that if Maskell 

 is to be credited with the authorship of the subgenus, then this latter 

 species should be taken as the type. Actually the first definite state- 



FIO 7— ERIOCOCCUS (THEKES) EUCALYPTI MASKBLL. A. LARVA, LEO, X 440 ; B. LARVA 

 ''T.iNrxr; C. 1.CL. .KMALE, TUBULAR OUCT ^^ --. -«- ^^ O^Js S^t X^ 

 D ADULT FEMALB, HIND LEG, X 165 ; E. SAME. ANTENNA. X 165 , F. «^^^^' Jj'^'^"''/" . r 

 FROM B^DX, X640; G. LARVA, ANAL LOBBS, X 440 ; H. LARVA, BODY ^^^^'J«^ ^^ ' ^ "^^^^ - 

 IdULT female, anal plates, X220; J. LARVA, OUTLINE FROM ABOVE, Xie5 K. ADULT 

 taUALE. QUINQUELOCULAR DISK PORE, X 1500 ; L. SAME, TUBULAR DUCT, X 1000. 



ment concerning the use of the name Th^kes to designate a group 

 higher than a species is that of Professor Cockerell,« as follows: 

 "(2) Rhizococcus (?) devonenisis Green, Ent. Record, 1896, p. 260. i 

 should certainly prefer to call this EHococcus <Uvomensis. We al- 

 ready know several species of EHococcus with 7-jointed antennae^; 

 the subgeneric name Thehes Crawford ms. is available for them^ 

 As this statement stands, it certainly implies the desi.gnation of A^ 



8 American Naturalist, vol. 31. 1807, p. oS9. 



