REMARKS ON CERTAIN GENERA OF COCCIDiE. 4o 



to Coventry " by all true lovers of science. Properly undertaken 

 and thought out, a systematic catalogue is essential to real 

 knowledge. Coccids suffer a good deal from the want of one. 



A further reason for desiring such a thing is that the older 

 (and I am sorry to say some of the modern) students of Coccids 

 have been unable to travel out of the grooves of what I may call 

 " ordinary " entomology ; I mean the determination of species 

 from external appearance and characters. Colour, size, general 

 form, apparent structure of the secreted coverings, have been 

 considered as of primary importance. On the other hand 

 (rightly as it seems to me), I have always insisted that true 

 Coccid classification should depend upon the anatomical 

 characters of the insects themselves, and that mere external 

 features, visible to the naked eye or an ordinary' lens, are but 

 secondary. A lepidopterist may get on capitally without using a 

 microscope at all ; a coccidist would fall into innumerable 

 errors without one. 



Dactylopius nipce, Mask, and the tubercles of Dactylopida. 



In Vol. XXV. of the ' Transactions of the New Zealand 

 Institute, 1892,' I described under the above name an insect 

 from Demerara, on Nipa fruticans. Mr. K. Newstead had 

 received, unknown to me, specimens of the same species, and 

 has published a description of it in the 'Entomologists' Monthly 

 Magazine,' August, 1893, at which time he was not aware of my 

 paper in the ' Transactions.' There are a few discrepancies 

 between these two accounts of the insect, on which I have sent 

 some remarks to Mr. Newstead ; they are not important, with 

 the exception of one which I proceed now to notice, as it affects 

 the question of classification generally. 



Following partly Dr. Signoret, I have ever since 1878 made 

 the principal characters separating the Dactylopidfe from the 

 Acanthococcidce to consist of the antennae, the anal ring, and the 

 processes at the abdominal extremity to which I have given the 

 name of " anal tubercles." In my ' Scale Insects of New 

 Zealand, 1887,' I gave figures illustrating the anal rings, and in 

 my i3aper of 1891 drew attention to the differences in the 

 antennae. There is thus no necessity to refer now to these 

 points ; but with regard to the tubercles the remarks of Mr. New- 

 stead as to D. nipce lead me to treat these organs in some detail. 



After stating that in D. nijjcs the tubercles are " very large," 

 he says : — " In the form of the antennal joints it is clearly 

 Dactylopid, but the very conspicuous anal lobes are abnormal." 

 I am unable to accede to this proposition ; neither can I agree 

 to refer the species to Rhizococcus or to any genus of the 

 AcantJiococcidiB. 



The subdivision Dactijlopid(e consists of such genera as 

 Dactylopius, Ripersia, Orthezia, &c. The Acanthococcidce include 

 Eriococcus, Gossi/paria, &c. Now, in absolute strictness, I 



