29i Transactions. — Zoology. 



as yet only in its infancy, and there are surely many scores 

 still to be discovered. 



The appointment of Mr. Lea as Government Entomologist 

 of Western Australia has naturally resulted in the finding of 

 many Coccids, several of which are given in this paper and 

 are very interesting. Ee verting to an old question of mine 

 still unanswered, I should be obliged to any one who could 

 suggest or explain how such a species as Spharococcus socialis 

 forms its gall. 



In the "Berliner Entom. Zeitschrift," 1894, Mr. E. H. 

 Eiibsaamen has a paper upon certain Australian Homoptera 

 and Diptera. Much of this is taken up by rather rough 

 criticism of some observations of Mr. J. G. 0. Tepper, of 

 Adelaide, as to which it may be sufficient to say that the 

 critic would have done well to acquire some greater know- 

 ledge of Coccids than he appears to possess before he pro- 

 ceeded to vihfy others. As regards the only Coccid in his 

 paper with which I am connected, I cannot by any means 

 accept his Crocidocysta froggatti, which is nothing but Cylin- 

 drococcus amj^lior of my paper of 1892 (mentioned without a 

 name by me in 1891). Mr. Eiibsaamen's fig. 19, in his 

 pi. XV., of the adult female, is an extraordinary one, show- 

 ing four distinct wing-cases. Probably these are intended to 

 represent segments with processes such as are shown in my 

 figures of C. casuarincB (1891). When naming C. amplior in 

 1892 I stated that the female is exceedingly like that of C. 

 casuarina, and the larva also. Mr. Eiibsaamen's figures of 

 his larva are almost exact copies, a little enlarged, of mine of 

 G. casuarince, his figure of the gall is like those of both 

 casiiai'incB and am-plior, and the details (feet, antennae, &c.) 

 answer entirely for either. I see absolutely nothing, either 

 in his figures or in his description, to warrant the establish- 

 ment of ''Crocidocysta." It is to be observed that Mr. 

 Eiibsaamen, writing in 1894, appears to have been entirely 

 unacquainted with any of my papers except that of 1891, 

 and, indeed, attempts to make merry over poor Mr. Tepper, 

 who had referred to my name, " IdiococcincB," of 1892, which 

 his critic knew nothing about. 



There is a point in the paper just mentioned which is of 

 greater importance. I mean the proposal to change Schra- 

 der's name, " Brachyscelis," to a new one, " Ajnonwrj^ha," on 

 the ground that the former was employed by somebody in 

 1834 for something else. It is high time that this practice 

 of upsetting on trivial grounds a well-established custom 

 should be abolished. Convenience may dictate that when an 

 author has invented a generic name previously appropriated 

 he should be recommended to change it for another. But 

 this should be done either by that author himself or during 



