1887.] 243 



" Essai sur les Cocliinellcs," which was presented to the Socie'te entomologique de 

 France, 25th March, 1868, and published in the Society's "Annales," Tome X, p. 91. 

 Signoret {I. c.) notices Shimer's work thus : " Tout demierement M. Shinier a cree 

 pour ces especes un nouveau genre qu'il appelle Lepidosaphes : nous aui'ions adopte 

 Tolontiers ce nom, si deja M. Targioni at nous-meme nWions public V Asjud. conchi- 

 formis sous le nom generique de Mytilaspis, nom qui lui est tres-bien approprie par 

 sa ressemblance avec une moule." Targioni, in his Memoir, p. 44, also refers to 

 Lepidosaphes, Shimer, but only as a synonym of 3Iytilaspis. 



Not being able at that time to put my hand upon Shimer's paper, and being 

 then in the act of writing to Professor Comstock, I asked his opinion. Before I had 

 his answer I had read Dr. Shimer's ai'ticle, and a very interesting account it is of 

 the structure and natural history of Aspidiotus pomorum, Bouche (erroneously cited 

 as Coccus concliiformis, Gmel.), from the newly-hatched larva to the egg-laying 

 female ; and it is noteworthy that with the most careful continuous observation he 

 did not see a male in any condition, this being confirmatory of all other observers. 

 Shimer does not appear to have investigated the structure or metamorphoses of any 

 otlier species of Diaspina, or he would have seen that most of the characters he puts 

 as generic belong also to most of the Sub-family. But the consideration of any 

 question of dubious priority of publication is rendered superfluous by the facts that 

 in the definition of Lepidosaphes some important generic specialities of the insect, 

 and of other species naturally associated with it {e.ff.,the peculiar form of the scale, 

 &c.), are omitted, and one, "male unknown" — a specific character only — is in- 

 serted ; therefore, the genus is not equivalent to the more fully characterized 

 Mytilaspis, and cannot be adopted in its place. The Family Lepidosaphidce, sought 

 to be established on the same narrow grounds as the genus, merges into Diaspis 

 (now Diaspina), a division made by Costa in 1827. 



Subsequently, I received Professor Comstock's reply, as follows, his conclusions 

 and mine being practically the same : — " It is quite probable that the name Lepi- 

 dosaphes was published before Mytilaspis, but I think that the former name has no 

 claim to recognition. Shimer made the (to him) wonderful discovery that the scale 

 of the apple tree bark-louse was distinct from the body, and that the tarsi of the 

 larvae bore digituli. These characters, together with the supposed absence of tarsal 

 claws, he thought of suflicient importance to establish a new genus, and to make it 

 the type of a new family. This is the gist of two pages of small print. If Lepido- 

 saphes stands for anything, it includes the whole of the scale-bearing CoccidoB, i. e., 

 the Diaspina. The name Diaspis was proposed for this group by Costa in 1827. 

 Lepidosaphes is therefore a synonym of the much older name Diaspis, and had no 

 claim to recognition in the subsequent division of the genus." 



Addendum. 

 Pulvinaria camellicola {cf. vol. xxii, p. 159). I have this from Kew Gardens 

 on the Orchids Oncidium papilio and Calanthe natalensis. 



8, Beaufort Gardens, Lewisham : 

 February, 1887. 



