94- THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



lecanium, Targioni, and Pollinia, Targioni; and in 1881 (fol- 

 lowing Signoret) I had placed Planchonia, Sign., amongst the 

 Coccids. Previously, all these three genera had been included 

 amongst a Lecanid section, to which Targioni had given the 

 name " Lecaniodias))id?e." This name appeared to me to be so 

 singularly inappropriate, seeing that none of the genera placed 

 under it had any Diaspid character and that their larvae were 

 certainly not Lecanid, that I declined to continue so confusing 

 an arrangement ; I placed under the Lecaniodiaspida3 such 

 genera as Ctejiochiton, Ceroplastes, &c., which fitted it, and 

 divided the others according as their characters seemed to direct. 

 One genus— Lecaniodiasjjis, Targioni — I was obliged to leave 

 alone, knowing nothing about it ; nor do I know if anybody has 

 ever since seen it. 



The exigencies of my book on ' Scale Insects of New Zealand ' 

 in 1887 unfortunately compelled me to extreme brevity. The 

 work was intended primarily for the use of settlers in the 

 colony, and much scientific detail would have been out of place ; 

 as it was, the book was scarcely published before I was told 

 " there was too much Latin in it." Some friends of mine who, 

 of late years, have taken up the study of Coccids and who have 

 ?iad occasion to touch upon some of the genera just mentioned, 

 have not given me credit for at least thinking there was some 

 good reason for my action. My papers of 1881 and 1883 have 

 been ignored and my classification set aside, probably because in 

 1887 it was not reasoned out in detail. The old Lecaniodiaspidse, 

 including Planchonia and Astewlecanium, have been made to do 

 duty still. The larval form of Asterolecanium has been un- 

 noticed ; the anal tubercles present in all stages of Planchonia 

 have not been considered ; and the confusion introduced by 

 Targioni in 1868 has been perpetuated without discussion of 

 important points. Mr. Asbmead, in his ' Generic Synopsis of 

 Coccidce,'' 1891, adheres to Targioni's system; he is followed by 

 Mr. Cockerell in ' Science Gossip,' 1893; and neither writer pays 

 any attention to the anatomical characters of the insects. 

 "Priority of authorship" has been taken as sufficient; the 

 "rules of nomenclature," said to be binding upon all zoologists, 

 have been made to override common-sense, clearness, and con- 

 venience. I must demur to this, and cannot agree to leave in the 

 Lecaniodiaspidae genera which are not at all Diaspid, nor in all 

 stages Lecanid. 



Signoret (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France, 1868, p. 282) 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. hamhusce and A. 

 aureum. In my paper of 1883 I drew attention to this point, 

 stating very clearly that it prevented me from treating Asterole- 

 canium like Planchonia, and placing it amongst the Coccids. But 



