497 



for the last hundred years this name has been apphed in error 

 to the brown-tail moth. Linnaeus' description of the adult insect 

 might apply to either species, but that it was the gold-tail he was 

 describing is proved by the fact that he quotes an earlier description 

 by Joannis Raius (1710) which states that the larva has three scarlet 

 lines above the feet on each side of the body, a character that occurs 

 in the gold-tail and not in the brown-tail. The specific name 

 chrysorrJioea must therefore be reserved for the gold-tail and another 

 name must be found for the brown-tail. The earliest description of 

 the brown-tail is by Esper (1785) under the name auriflua, but this 

 cannot be adopted because the gold-tail had been previously 

 described under it by Schiftermliller and Denis. The next description 

 is that of Donovan (1813) who called it Phahena phaeorrhoca. 



The change in specific nomenclature also necessitates a revision 

 of the generic names. This question is discussed at length, the gold- 

 tail being placed in the genus Arctornis, Germ. (1811), and becoming 

 Arctornis chrysorrhoea, L., and the brown- tail in the genus Nugmia, 

 Hb. (1832), the correct name for it being therefore Nygmia 

 phaeorrhoea, Don. 



Speyer (E. R.). Summary Report on the Work of the Entomological 

 Division. — Ceylon Administration Reports for 1916, Part iv. Dept. 

 Agric, 1st February 1917, pp. C 7-8. [Received 11th September 

 1917.] 



The following tea pests have been investigated during the year under 

 review : Homona cojjearia (tea tortrix) has been very severe in some 

 localities. Orgyia postica (small tussock moth) has been reported in 

 the caterpillar stage in January and October, and the fringed nettle 

 grub [Natada nararia] in May and July. Zeuzera coffeae (red borer) 

 occurred on many occasions between January and November in 

 various localities ; in one district the borers were heavily parasitised 

 by Braconids which were hatched from the cocoons in November. 

 Psychid bagworms were reported in October. Xyleborus fornicatiis 

 (shot-hole borer) has been checked in many districts and in some 

 localities showed a marked decrease due to climatic conditions, 

 while in others it increased locally. Two other Scolytids, markedly 

 smaller than the true shot-hole borer, have been recorded in tea. 

 Astycus sp. (tea weevil) was reported in March and Arhela quadrinotata 

 (bark-eating borer) in January. The Fulgorid, Ricanoptera opaca, 

 apparently a new pest of tea, was reported in May, the outbreak 

 lasting only a short time. Coccus {Lecanium) viridis was found in 

 August in small numbers attacking tea. Tea mites were much in 

 evidence during the long drought in the early part of the year, but 

 disappeared with the coming of the rains, the most abundant being 

 Eriophyes {P-hytoptus) carinatus (purple mite). A case is recorded of 

 tea infested with Psocids ; it is probable that the insects were 

 originally present on the wood of the tea chests and thus obtained 

 admittance to the tea. 



On rubber, no serious pests have been recorded. Hevea was attacked 

 in January and February by the small, bark-eating caterpillars of 

 Comocritis pieria. Acacias were attacked by Icerya purchasi (fluted 

 scale). 



(C416) B 



