114 PROCEEDIiSrGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. yol. 60. 



GENERIC DIAGNOSIS OF ANOPLASPIS. 



Diaspine forms of somewhat uncertain affinities, possibly to be in- 

 cluded in the Lepidosaphes group of genera ; ^^ scale of adult female 

 nearly circular to pyriform, exuviae apical; adult female elongate 

 turbinate to somewhat pyriform, membranous except portions of the 

 pygidium ; antennae minute tubercles with a single seta, each set in 

 a small pit in head ; spiracles slender, anterior with pores, posterior 

 without ; head with tiny setae but no pores ; thorax and abdomen with 

 tubular ducts and setae at margin, but no gland spines; pygidium 

 large, prominent, strongly triangular, lobes present, the median fused 

 or separate, the lateral margin beyond the lobes heavily chitinized 

 and serrate or denticulate, with one or two pairs of small and very in- 

 conspicuous gland spines accompanying the lobes, marginal setae 

 normal and occurring singly, without incisions or chitinous para- 

 physes, anal opening moderate, approximately half-way between base 

 and apex of pygidium, paragenitals present, numerous, in five linear 

 groups, marginal ducts large, numerous, not grouped, axis longi- 

 tudinal, dorsal ducts large, in three definite rows, a single group to 

 each row, without micropores, with a few ventral setae, without 

 basal thickenings, with large, conspicuous, broad thickenings extend- 

 ing in from the posterior margin; intermediate stage female essen- 

 tially similar to adult ; larva with 4-5-segmented antennae, the termi- 

 nal annulate, apex of body with a median projection, a pair of lobes 

 and several pairs of marginal tubular ducts, the inner pair within 

 the lobes. ^^ 



In spite of the differences noted, chiefly with relation to the rather 

 conspicuous divergence in the character of the median lobes, and to 

 the shape of the body in the two species discussed herewith, the 

 writers believe them to be congeneric, since the. resemblance in prac- 

 tically all of the remaining comparative characters is close. 



It is not possible at present to give any more definite indication 

 of the relationships of the genus than that suggested in the generic 

 diagnosis. 



1' The writers believe that the male scale of botli these species was observed in the 

 Maskell material, and that it was similar in shape and appearance to that of the female. 

 The material was so limited, however, that the preceding can not be stated positively. 



'* The simllatlty in the apex of the abdomen of the larva in tliese two species is note- 

 worthy, in contrast to the marked differences in the adults. While a careful effort was 

 made to keep a!l stajres of these two species separate, it is possible, since they were both 

 enclosed in the same package, tliat the larva became scattered before new mounts were 

 made, and that as a result the larva of the same species has been described twice. 

 The material available for study does not permit an attempt to verify this possibility, 

 and It Is therefore necessary to let the larval descriptions stand as distinct, pending the 

 examination of additional material. In this connection It may be noted that the differ- 

 ence of one segment in the number found in the antennas may also prove to be more 

 apparent than actual wlien an abundance of good material is available for examination. 



