14 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



casica (Kolen. oj). cit. pi. 6, f. 10), also (p. 38) Cicada plehejavur. 

 armeniaca (Kolen. pi. 5, f. 1). 



(c) On p 124. for " Cicada stevenn (sic !), Kryn. Mus. Berol," 

 read " Cicada stevenii, Krynicki, 1837, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 

 V. 86, pi. vi. f. 1 = Cicada {Tihicina) stevenii, Kolen., 1857, 

 op. cit. XXX. 416, pi. vi, f. 7." 



{d) On p. 167 Cicadetta suhapicalis (Walk.) =:\\adusta, Hagen. 



{e) Chremistica, Stul, 1870, 0. V. A. F., xxvii. 714, type 

 Wviridis (Fabr.), Sik\ = biinaculata (Oliv.) = Diceroprocta, Stal, 

 I.e., type alacris (Stal) Stid = transversa (W sdker) = Rihana, 

 Distant, 1904, A. M. N. H. (7), xiv. 425, type ochracea (Walker), 

 Dist. 



Distant (Cat. Horn. pp. 32 and 38) has split the [sub-]genera 

 Chremistica and Diceroprocta, placing part of each in Cicada and 

 Rihana. The type of Diceroprocta, however, is (sec Distant) a 

 Rihana, as also the type of Chremistica.* Rihana is therefore 

 unnecessary. 



(/) Platylomia, Stal. Distant (p. 58) says that this was not 

 described by Stal, and was only a name in 1870 ! On the con- 

 trary, it was described by Stal (in the place cited by Distant), 

 who doubtingly ascribed fiavida, Guerin, as the type. As the 

 flavida of Guerin is a Platylomia, and there is no reason to 

 suppose Stal was not correct in his determination, I cannot see 

 hovi flavida can be set aside as type, to admit spinosa (which is 

 invalid in any case, as Stal places it at the head of his subgenus 

 Cosmopsaltria.) 



Fam. CocciD^. 



I have received Sanders' Catalogue of recently described 

 Coccidas,! which will undoubtedly be of great use. I must, 

 however, take exception to two statements. Regarding p. 2, 

 footnote, I did not (in my Catalogue of the Aphid^e) consider 

 Polyocellaria to be an Aphid on my own responsibility ; I noted 

 that it was described as probably allied to Orthezia, on the 

 authority of the ' Bericht der Entomologie,' but marked the 

 genus with a f , signifying that I had not seen the description. 

 I placed it among the Aphidse on the authority of the ' Zoological 

 Eecord,' usually a safe guide. 



My Eidecanium curtisii is noted as not valid, but I cannot 

 concur. Coccus aceris, Curtis, was stillborn, and cannot be 

 resuscitated. 



Fam. CiMiciD^. 



{a) Lamprophara hifasciata = Calliphara (Scutellera ?) hifas- 

 ciata, A. White, 1839, Mag. Nat. Hist., n. s., iii. 541. 



•■' Three species are mentioned in Chremistica, the two last being com- 

 pared to the first, which should therefore be considered the type. 

 i Bull. U.S. Ent. Techn. Ser., 12, pp. 1-18. 



