101 



Thomas says was collected April 20, 1878, at Carbondale, 

 111., the description of the winged form being made from a 

 single individual. Additional descriptive notes, based on this 

 slide but not given by Thomas, are as follows : 



Antennal segment III bears 13-15 short transverse sensoria;' 

 IV, V, and base of VI each with a single sensoria at distal 

 end, the last two segments slightly imbricate. Measurements 

 follow. 



Right antenna 

 Left antenna 



Total 



1.0920 mm. 

 1.0838 mm. 



Length of body (somewhat shriveled) 1.127 rf""- 



Length of wing 2.685 mm. 



Width of wing 0.824 mm. 



(Camera lucida drawings of the fore and hind wings, and antenna, made from 

 this specimen are shown in Plate VI, Figs. 9-1 1.) 



"Chaitophorits ncgiindinis". In rather poor condition. This maybe 

 the type. 



"]. Monell, Lonicera, June 24, '78". One each of the winged, wing- 

 less, and immature forms, mounted in balsam. This is doubt- 

 less the species which Thomas refers to as Chaitophorus loni- 

 cera Monell MSS. After examining these and the type speci- 

 mens — Monell's 66x (=z" Aphis loniccrcc July 17, 1877, St. 

 Louis, Mo.") and 148X (="Lonicera aphid June 16, 1878, 

 St. Louis") — kindly loaned me by Mr. Monell, I considered the 

 form more closely allied to the genus Chaitophorus, as Thomas 

 had placed it, but doubtless the old slides are misleading, as 

 appears from the correspondence here quoted. Professor 

 Oestlund, in a letter of February 19, 1910, says: "Aphis loni- 

 cercu is an anomalous species that is neither a typical Aphis 

 nor Chaitophorus, but undoubtedly fits better in Aphis than in 

 Chaitophorus. If you had observed the species in the field you 

 would not connect it in the least wnth Chaitophorus. In case 

 I should characterize it from my experience with it in the 

 field, I would say that it is an Aphis that is trying to be a 

 Pemphigus. At present I have not settled its true position in 

 the family to my mind and do not know if we will be able to 

 do so before its life history becomes better known. Rut Mo- 

 nell's description, though short, is so well done that we need 



