Maskell. — 0)1 Coccididee. 73 



adult females. The six-jointed antennae and the tarsi longer 

 than the tibia are characters usually denoting an immature 

 stage. Nor can I certainly fix them in the genus Lecanimn. 

 They greatly resemble, in their narrow subcylindrical form 

 and in the convergent extremity of the abdomen, the figure of 

 Signoretia IuzuIcb, Dufour, given by Signoret in his pi. viii., 

 fig. 1 (pi. vi. of 1871). Signoretia in the adult stage con- 

 structs a very definite sac of white cotton, and the spinnerets 

 and spines of the species now under discussion seem to point 

 to a similar procedure. On the whole, I leave the insect for 

 the present as a Lecanium, with the expectation that the full- 

 grown form will be found to inhabit a sac ; and I shall not be 

 at all surprised if it should turn out to be a Pulvinaria. 



Lecanium nigrum, Nietner, "Enemies of the Coffee-tree," 

 1861 ; Green, Ind. Museum Notes, 1889, p. 117, and pi. 

 vii. ; Douglas, Ent. Mo. Mag., April, 1891, p. 95. Plate 

 IV., fig. 3. 



Lecanium depressum, Targioni, Stud, sulle Coccin., 1867, 

 and Catal., 1868; Signoret, Ann. de la Soc. Ent. Franc, 

 1873, p. 439 and pi. xiii. ; Douglas, Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. 

 xxiv., 1887, p. 27; Maskell, N.Z. Trans., voL xi., p. 206, 

 and vol. xxv., p. 220. Plate IV., fig. 4. 



Lecanium begonise, Douglas, Ent. Mo. Mag., 1892, p. 209. 



Plate IV., fig. 5. 



The first of these three has been reported from India and 

 Demerara ; the second from hothouses in Europe and New 

 Zealand, from Australia, and from the Sandwich Islands ; the 

 third from Demerara. They are thus evidently natives of 

 tropical, or at least hot, countries, and seem widely distri- 

 buted. 



I have arrived at the conclusion that they are all practi- 

 cally identical, or, at most, varieties of one species. Priority 

 of nomenclature compels me to adopt L. nigrum as the type, 

 although really no scientific description of that insect ap- 

 peared before that of Mr. Douglas, in 1891. Nietner gives no 

 details ; and Mr. Green, though giving several figures, attaches 

 thereto scarcely any description. On the other hand, Targioni, 

 in 1867-68, is equally unsatisfactory regarding L. depressum ; 

 but Signoret gave sufficient details in 1873, and in reality de- 

 serves to be credited with the type. L. begonicB is only 

 described fully by Douglas. 



T may observe that the remarks about to be made are 

 founded on specimens received by me, of L. nigrum from Mr. 

 Cotes, of L. depressum from Dr. Signoret, and of L. hegonice 

 from Mr. Douglas, so that I can have little doubt as to identi- 

 fication. Strictly, these observations ought to have been 



