166 THE EKTOMOLOGIST, 



The only matter upon which I am left in doubt, after care- 

 fully reading Mr. Butler's note, is, whether he could really have 

 misinterpreted my citations in the (to me) absurd manner 

 suggested by him.* 



REMARKS ON CERTAIN GENERA OF COCCIDM. 



By W. M. Maskell. 



(Concluded from p. 95.) 



Lecanium nigrum, Nietner, 1861 ; Lecanium depressmii, 

 Targioni, 1867-8 ; Lecanium begonice, Douglas, 1892, 



The first of these three has been reported from India and 

 Demerara; the second from hothouses in Europe and New 

 Zealand and from open air in Australia and Sandwich Islands ; 

 the third from Demerara. They are thus evidently all from 

 tropical, or at least hot, countries. 



I have arrived at the conclusion that they are all practically 

 identical, or at the most varieties of one species. Priority in. 

 nomenclature compels me to adopt L. nigrum as the type, 

 although really no scientific description of that insect appeared 

 before that of Mr. Douglas in 1891. Nietner (Enemies of Coffee- 

 tree) gives no details; and Mr. Green (Ind. Museum Notes, 

 1889), though giving several figures, attaches thereto scarcely 

 any description. On the other hand, Targioni (Stud, sulle 

 Coccin. and Catal. 1868) is equally unsatisfactory as regards L. 

 depressum, but Signoret (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France, 1873) 

 gives sufficient details and really deserves to be credited with the 

 species. L. hegonice is only described by Douglas (Ent. Mo. 

 Magazine, Aug., 1892). 



I may observe that the remarks about to be made are founded 

 on specimens received by me, — of L. nigrum, from Mr. Cotes 

 (Indian Museum) ; of L. depressum, from Dr. Signoret ; and of 

 L. begonice, from Mr. Douglas ; so that I can have little doubt 

 as to identification. Strictly, these observations ought to have 

 been made in my paper of 1892, when I reported L. depressum 

 from Sydney and Honolulu, for I had then in my possession the 

 same material ; but having many other things to think of I 

 overlooked the point. 



■•'• In answer to the above, I would also reiterate ray former statement : 

 ' — The first reference given by Mr. Smith was not needed, and therefore put 

 me out, as it evidently did him also ; had the synonyms been arranged in 

 the usual way, such an error could not have occurred. As already stated, 

 only 07ie specimen, labelled as E. gaosalis, ever existed in our collection : 

 therefore 1 fail to comprehend how Mr. Smith could have made notes on two 

 in different drawers. I have gone through the whple, and no second 

 example, so labelled, is in any Museum drawer. — A. G. B. 



