1892.1 279 



may be doubted if his description applies to Linne's C. caprew, and 

 also if his observation refers alw^ijs to one species, although he says : 

 " Je ne doute pas que ce ne soit la meme espece, malgre la difference 

 de I'habitation." Signoret had his one example from poplar, Dalman 

 says his C. cyprceola lives on various trees, among others on Salix 

 caprea, and although he was inclined to believe it was the Linnean 

 C. caprecB, he did not adopt the name because it was applicable to 

 other species living on that plant, including his C. gihher, which, in 

 some of its stages, he says it much resembles! 



Coccus caprecd^ Linn., is in the old lists of British CoccidcB cited 

 by Stephens (Syst. Cat. Brit. Ins , ii, 368), but until now it has not 

 been described in England. Walker omits it from his " List of 

 British Hemiptera," 1860. In June, 1885, I found two ? and one ^ 

 scale on Salix alba in Beaufort Gardens, Lewisham. 



In April, 1889, I received from Mr. F. P. Pascoe two ? scales of 

 a Lecanium, obtained by the Rev. G. Henslow from a rose tree, 

 about which I could not at the time determine : they were not L. 

 rosarum, Snellen von Yollenhoven, which I had previously from Mr. 

 G. S. Saunders, off roses at Canterbury. In July, 1891, Mr. James 

 Eardley Mason sent a good many examples of a Lecanium found on a 

 rose tree growing up his house at Alford, Lincolnshire. These are 

 evidently the same species as the last mentioned, yet the habitat 

 rather made me hesitate in the belief that they were, as they seemed 

 to be, L. caprecB, and a microscopical examination alone could deter- 

 mine. Being precluded from this at the time I sent some to my ever 

 willing aid, Mr. Newstead ; and his examination, and drawings of the 

 antennae and legs, here reproduced, show decisively that the species is 

 identical with that described by Signoret, and except the one discre- 

 pancy noticed below, it is otherwise conformable to the characters of 

 the Linnean species. The antennae (remarkable in the 3rd joint) and 

 the legs are now first figured ; Signoret only described the antennae, 

 and could not obtain the legs. 



Curiously, among the specimens from Mr. Mason's rose tree were 

 a few of full size, with a large, prominent mameJon on each side of 

 the dorsum, the two distinctly separated from each other, just like 

 Dalman's figure of his C. gihher. I drew Mr. Newstead's special 

 attention to these forms, with reference to observation of the antennae 

 and legs, and he reports that these members are quite identical in 

 character with those of the normal form of the insects living on the 

 same rose stems ; I must, therefore, conclude that they are all of one 

 species, and that the difference in the contour of the scales is solely 



