165 



OBSERVATIONS ON COCCI D.K (No. 11). 



BY R. NEWSTEAD, F.E.S., 



CURATOE OF THE GKOSTENOR MDSEUM, CHESTER. 



LiCHTENSIA VIBUBNI. 



LicUensia viburni, Sign., Ess. Cochin., p. 204, pi. x, figs. 7 and 7a ; Douglas, Ent. 



Mo. Mag., vol. xxiv, p. Ifi7. 



? adult. Antennae of eight joints (fig. 1, left antenna) ; 3 the longest ; 1,2 



and 4 in length nearly equal ; 5 a little longer than either of the latter, but much 



shorter than 3 ; 6 and 8 nearly equal, the latter 



the longest ; 7 shortest ; the fine hairs are ar- 

 ranged as shown in the figure. Legs (fig. 2, 

 posterior), in length equal, but owing to position, 

 the anterior pair seem a little the shortest in 

 some specimens ; tarsi much shorter than tibite ; 

 anterior tarsi (fig. 3) with a constriction on the 

 upper-side, in some it is situate at about one-third 

 of the distance from the tibio-tarsal joint, in 

 others in the centre ; digitules of the tarsi ordi- 

 nary, those of the claw vei-y long, broad, and 

 much dilated at apex, presenting different forms 

 according as they are placed beneath the cover- 

 glass ; placed close together at the apex of the 

 tibife beneath are two hairs, one much longer than 

 the other, and a little behind them a third. Mentum monomerous ; unexpanded 

 filaments shorter than antenna, but variable, some are much shorter than others. 

 Anal dorsal lobes: inner margin with two long hairs ; apex with two very minute, 

 blunt, spine-like processes. Anal ring with eight hairs. Margin all round with 

 rather long spines, easily seen with a one-inch objective, are shaped like a mason's 

 chisel, but in profile they appear pointed. 



Mr. Douglas (Z. c.) has so fully dealt with the general characters, 

 that it is only necessary here to give the more minute details, with 

 figures, in order to facilitate the comparison with the next species, to 

 which it is very closely allied. 



It may be well to add, that I find a very slight tendency to varia- 

 tion in the relative length of the joints of the antennae. It will be 

 found on comparison that Signoret's description (I. c.) of the antenna 

 does not agree with his fig. 7 ; we may, therefore, assume they were 

 made from different individuals. Also Mr. Douglas (/. c.) did not 

 find the 7th joint the shortest. The variation, however, must be con- 

 sidered exceptional. The characters given above may be considered 

 typical. The description is from specimens taken at Llandaff by 

 Mr. B. Tomlin. In my garden at rheslcr 1 have been fortunate in 



