118 [May, 



occupied with 8 — 9 transverse slight ridges or corrugations, divided by a faint 

 median Hne ; the sides below this, down to the very narrow marginal field, apparenly 

 smooth, but really delicately shagreened ; the anal end with a pyriform depression, 

 the small end outwards, the edges of the depression broadly thickened, rim-like, 

 ultimately, as the extremity is approached, approximating yet not coalescing, but 

 extending separately to the margin of the scale-like integument (in this respect 

 differing from the usual V-like formation in other species) ; at the base of this 

 structure is a faint tongue-shaped organ. No hairs on any part. Length, 1 mm. 



Signoret does not appear to have known the species, for he only 

 quotes Koch's description. Frauenfeld seems to have been in doubt 

 about it, for he says it is desirable to have a fresh description, as the 

 pupa was unknown. The description I am now able to give applies 

 either to larva mature, or pupa, the distinction between them not 

 being outwardly apparent. As Frauenfeld and Signoret say, the best 

 distinctive specific characters in Aleurodes exist in these stages. Al- 

 though absent in the ultimate condition, the usual white marginal 

 fringe may have previously existed. 



On May 2Sth, 1881, I found a colony of the imago on the lowest 

 branches of a hornbeam (^Carpinus hetulus) at Bexley, Kent, but only 

 DOW know the larva, as described above, by hibernating examples 

 attached to the under-side of some leaves of hornbeam, received on 

 December 25th last from Dr. T. A. Chapman, Hereford, who had just 

 previously picked them up ; from their habitat and peculiar structure 

 I have no doubt they belong to this species. 



153, Lewisham Eoad, S.E. : 



January 2nd, 1895. 



Correction to my paper, "Contributions to the Study of the Liponeuridce, Lw." 

 (Serl. Unt. Zeitschr., 1895, pp. 148-159). — I deem it my duty formally to retract 

 my recommendation of a change of name for the Family Blepharoceridce, which, 

 upon Loew's recommendation, I introduced into my recent paper in the Berl. Ent. 

 Zeit., 1895, p. 148. I have just received a letter from Prof. Mik (of Vienna), who 

 calls my attention to the fact that Loew was mistaken in his statement about the 

 perfect structural identity of the antennse of Liponeiira and Blepharocera. In ex- 

 amining the antennae of the latter genus under a compound microscope, Mik 

 discovered in the female specimens a row of minute hairs on one side of the antenna 

 which do not exist in Liponeura, and justify the name bestowed by Macquart upon 

 the genus Blepharocera, that is, " provided with ciliated antennse." Macquart 

 actually described and figured this character, which, owing to its minuteness, has 

 been overlooked since. The name of the genus being thus vindicated, there is no 

 reason to change the Family name, derived from its earliest published genus. (Tlius 



