issr.] 99 



Fourcroy, who, in his " Eutomologia Parisiensis," gave names to 



Geoffrey's insects, says of this species (I. c.) — 



" No. ] 1. C. quercus, Le Kermes rond et brun du chciie. C. quercus rotundus 

 rftiscHS." 



The name given, taken as that of Linne, is incorrect, for Linne 

 himself, in the " Systema Naturae," p. 740, No. 5, refers his Coccus 

 quercus to " Reaumur Ins., iv, t. 6, f . 1 — 4," adding " Habitat in 

 Qtiercu rohore ;" but neither then, nor in the " Fauna Suecica," giving 

 any description. Ecaumur (/. c.) says of it, i. e., of figs. 1 — 4, that 

 it is " une Gallinsecte en forme de rein ;" this in no way applies to 

 the fig. 2 of pi. V, representing our L. fuscum, which, as he says, is 

 " [)resque spherique." This figure No. 2 is not referred to by Linne 

 for any of his species of Coccus. 



The name/^<sc«s was first applied to this species by Gmelin in the 

 13th edition of Linne's " Systema Naturae," where (!■. c.) he has — 



" Coccus fuscus. C. quercus fuse us, Modeer, Act. Goth., i, 24, 18. Geoffr. ins. 

 par. i, 507, 11. E.eaum. ins., iv, t. 5, f. 2. 



Habitat in quercu robore, albo tomento obductus." 



The last three words are an addition of his own, and refer, I pre- 

 sume, to the cottony matter enveloping the eggs and covered by the 

 scale ; they are not in the original of Geoffroy or Eeaumur which are 

 cited. The reference to Modeer is not correct, either as to the name 

 or its applicability to the species of Geoffroy and Reaumur indicated. 

 Modeer (/. c.) has — 



" Ek Fastflyet {Quercus roboris). Female scale reniform, or as if witli bolli 

 ends curved together, dark brown, bedecked with a wliite powder, . . Geoffroy 

 calls this ' Fastfly ' Chermes quercus reniformis." 



This is equivalent to Coccus quercus, Linn., as before stated, and 

 is not the C. fuscus here denoted. 



In his " Kssai sur Ics CochinellcB," p. 250, Signoret describes a 

 Lecanium fuscus which he attributes to Geoffroy (meaning, no doubt, 

 his "No. 11, Chermes quercus rotundus fuscus,''' cited above), yet at the 

 same time he disallows that the figure in Reaumur's pi. v, fig. 2, cited 

 by Geoffroy to illustrate his species, represents it. Thus he says — • 



" Dans notre Catalogue nous avons indique I'espece de Reaumur, pi. v, fig. 2, 

 comme 6tant le fuscus, Geoffroy, puisqu'il y renvoyait ; mais la figure do Reaumur 

 se rapporte a un autre type qui pourrait bien etre le L. Emerici, Planclion, car il 

 dit ' EUcs sont tres semblables, par leur figure et leur grosseur, au Kermes, et leur 

 couleur est peu diff^rente de celle du Kermes pale.' Un peu plus loin il ajoute : — 

 ' qui y tieunent (aux chenes) par une base circulaire qui a peu de diametre,' tandis 

 que, dans fuscus, c'est une sphere coupec en deux et par consequent tenant a I'arbre 

 par une lai-ge surface circulaire, oe qui se rapporte a Geoft'roy disant qu'elle ressemble 

 k celle de Forme." 



