October, '10] cockerell on coccid.e 425 



cavendishi) , Aralia chahrierii, Magnolia grandifiora, orange, sweet 

 olive, camphor tree, oleander, royal palm (Oreodoxia regia), date 

 palm (Phoenix reclinata), prickly palm, (Agrocomia mexicana) screw- 

 pine, cocoanut palm, Phoenix canariensis, Chamerops gracilis, Metro- 

 sideros sp., Aralia paperiferce, poinsettia, myrtle, -etc. 



27. Chrysomphalus ohscurus Comst. On pecan. 



28. Odonaspis inusitata Green. On bamboo (Bamhusa argentia 

 striata), Japanese bamboo {Bamhusa taisan chiku). 



29. Odonaspis sp. On Bermuda grass. 



30. Lepidosaphes heckii Newn. On orange, Citrus trifoliata, 

 Camellia japonica. 



31. Lepidosaphes gloverii Pack. On orange. 



32. Ischnaspis longirostris Sign. On Elceis guineensis. 



33. Parlatoria pergandei Comst. On Croton, orange. 



34. Parlatoria proteus Curt. On Eloeis guineensis. 



THE COCCID.E OF BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 

 By T. D. A. Cockerell 



In the University of Colorado Studies, Feb., 1905, I pubhshed tables 

 for the separation of all the Rocky Mountain Coccidse known at that 

 time. Not many have been added since, but we have now a fair hst 

 of species from Boulder County, which seems worth publishing. 

 I have included in the list (marked with an asterisk), various species 

 brought in with plants, and not in any sense members of the fauna. 

 These are of interest as showing the way in which Coccidse are carried 

 about, and also as indicating sources of interesting material to those 

 engaged in the study of the group. 



Orthezhn^ 



Orthezia lasiorum Ckll. and 0. olivacea Ckll. Both common at 

 Boulder in nests of Lasius. 



I will take this opportunity to raise once again the question whether 

 the Coccus adonidum L. is not an Orthezia. I so referred it in Proc. 

 Phila. Acad., 1899, but Marchal (Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 1908, p. 226) 

 considers it to be Pseudococcus, while actually quoting the description, 

 in which appears the words, " linea dorsalis longitudinalis elevata." 

 Sanders, (Jour. Econ. Ent., 1909, p. 431) reaching the same conclusion 

 as Marchal, or merely following him, even refers to the " good " 

 Linnean description. As I had already said my say, I tried, but 

 without success, to get a committee of entomologists to sit on this 



