82 Transactions. — Zoology. 



taken as sufficient; the " rules of nomenclature," said to be 

 binding on all zoologists, have been made to override common- 

 sense, clearness, and convenience. I must demur to this, and 

 cannot agree to leave in the Lecaniodiaspidse genera v^hich are 

 not at all Diaspid nor in all stages Lecanid. 



Signoret (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France, 1868, p. 82) says 

 of the adult Asterolecanium miliaris, " This species is clearly 

 Lecanid, the anal extremity being cleft, with anal lobes "; and 

 he further remarks that it closely resembles A. hamhuscB 

 and A. aureum. In my paper of 1883 I drew attention to 

 this point, stating very clearly that it prevented me from treat- 

 ing Asterolecanium like PlancJionia, and placing it among the 

 Coccids. But Signoret also states that the larva of A. aureit7n 

 and the larva of Pollinia costce have the anal tubercles of 

 Coccids ; consequently it seemed to me equally imjDOssible to 

 leave these genera amongst the Lecanids proper, and so, in 

 1883 and 1887, I grouped Follinia and Astcrolecanitwi w4th 

 Kerjnes. 



Professor Targioni has, I believe (although I have not 

 seen his paper), lately, in 1893, made further observations on 

 Asterolecanium aureum, and concluded that it is really a 

 Planchonia. If that is so, it must have the anal tubercles of a 

 Coccid. Possibly it may be found some day that A. miliaris 

 and A. hamhuscB are in like position. As to A. qnercicola, I 

 have long had doubts about it, and, indeed, whenever anybody 

 has sent me specimens under the name of Asterolccanimn I 

 have always found them turn out to be Planchonia fimbriata, 

 Fonscol. Perhaps, therefore, the whole genus may have to 

 be abandoned some day, and Pollinia and Lecaniocliaspis may 

 share the same fate. But (and this is the important point 

 for the present) until Signoret's statements quoted above 

 remain uncontradicted there is a genus, in which the larva is 

 Coccid and the adult is Lecanid, called "Asterolecanium," 

 and this must therefore be placed in a group with Kermes, 

 intermediate between Lecanids and Coccids. Planchonia is 

 altogether Coccid. The two genera must therefore be sepa- 

 rated, and under no possible conditions can either of them be 

 placed with the Lecanio-diaspincB. Eeasoning such as this I 

 believe to be the only true basis of proper classification, and 

 on it 1 have founded my own system since 1881. 



To sum up : Asterolecanium must remain with Kermes and 

 include (at present) A. miliaris alone, or possibly also A. 

 quercicola, though this is very doubtful. A. aiireum and pro- 

 bably A. hamhuscz must be attached to Planclionia, and in all 

 likelihood to P. fimbriata. If, hereafter, A. miliaris and A. 

 quercicola are found to be clearly Coccid, then Asterolecanium 

 will disappear altogether. As for any fancied "priority" 

 which the name may be supposed to have over Planchonia, 



