86 Transactions. — Zoology. 



I have not yet been able to examine specimens of arahidis 

 and hedcrcs, but in the descriptions I can see nothing to dis- 

 tinguish them from the type. As for P. {Asterohcanium) 

 quercicola, I beheve it to be identical with P. fimhriata from 

 two specimens which I possess, but have already remarked on 

 this point in the present paper. 



Size is of very little or no importance. The var. piistulans 

 is possibly usually larger and var. epacridis smaller than the 

 type, but I lay no stress on this. 



The anatomical characters of the females of all these 

 insects are identical in all stages. All are without feet and 

 antennae, and all have marginal rows of figure-of-eight spin- 

 nerets. The only adult male yet described is that of var. 

 sty2)helicB. It is of course possible that future discovery 

 may detect such difTerences in the males as may induce 

 specific separation, but I doubt it, because the differences 

 amongst males of a genus are very seldom important or 

 clear. 



Since writing the above I have received from Sydney, on 

 Lepfos2)erinum, some specimens of the second stage of var. 

 styjyhclice. These entirely confirm the view just taken, as I 

 can see nothing in them sufficiently valid for specific separa- 

 tion from the type or from the var. epacridis. 



Subdivision DACTYLOPINiE. 

 (Comparison with Acanthococcinm. Plate V., figs. 10-22.) 



In vol. XXV. of the Transactions, 1892, p. 232, I described,, 

 under the name of Dactylopius ni'pce, aii insect from Demerara 

 on Nipa fruticans . Mr. Newstead had received, unknown to 

 me, specimens of the same species, and has published a 

 description of it in the Entom. Monthly Magazine, August, 

 1893. I shall presently notice two or three small discrepan- 

 cies between the two accounts of the insect ; but one of them 

 raises a point on which it may be useful to make a few 

 remarks on the DactylopincR in general. 



The distinction w^hich, partly following Signoret, I have 

 always drawn between the subdivisions AcanthococcincB and 

 DactylopinoR is based upon what I believe to be the true scien- 

 tific method of Coccid classification — namely, anatomical 

 features. It depends principally upon the characters of the 

 antennae, the anal ring, and the anal tubercles of the adult 

 female. In my paper of 1891 (N.Z. Trans., vol. xxiv., p. 30) 

 I drew attention to one feature of the antennae which might 

 be very useful as a guide to students; and in my "Scale 

 Insects of New Zealand," 1887, pi. ii., I gave character- 

 istic figures of anal rings in the two subdivisions. There is 

 therefore no need to enter now again into a discussion of these- 



