REPORT OF THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 467 



plies were received as follows: The Queensland authorities simply- 

 promised inquiry and report. The government of Soutli Australia 

 did not recognize tlie insect in question as a native of that colony. 

 The inquiry to Victoria was referred to Prof. Frederick McCoy, di- 

 rector of the JTatlonal Museum at Melbourne, who* identified the in- 

 sect as a new Dorthesia, "■'common in Victoria on different kinds of 

 Acacia.'^ 



This is the extent of our information. Mr. Maskell, in his second 

 paper on this species (Transactions and Proceedings ISTew Zealand 

 Institute, XIV, p. 226, 1881), writes: "When in Australia a few 

 months ago I observed at Ballarat an insect, certainly an Icerya, but 

 I think not I. purchasi ; but I had no opportunity of bringing away 

 a single specimen." There exists, then, a possibility at least that the 

 insect under consideration is found at Ballarat as well as around Mel- 

 bourne. 



In Cape Colony. — We find in the "Report of the Commission," 

 &c. , just cited, the following information on the spread of the insect 

 in this colony: 



From the answers received it would seem that the insect, having first appeared 

 and succeeded in establisliing itself in Cape Town and the vicinity, gi'adually spread 

 along the lines of traffic by land and sea to different parts of the colony; and we may 

 mention, in evidence of fts irregular dispersal by chance methods of conveyance, 

 that it was observed in the village of Ookiep, Namaqualand, only a few months 

 after its first discovery in the Cape Town Botanical Gardens in 1878, and yet was 

 not seen in the neighboring division of Stellenbosch till the later end of 1876. 



The limits to which the insect had extended at the time of the pub- 

 lication of the report of the commission (1877, presumably the latter 

 part of the year) included the following localities: Cape Town and 

 neighborhood, Simon's Town, Stellenbosch (Mulders Vlei), Malmes- 

 bury, Paarl, Wellington, Namaqualand (Ookiej)), Bredasdorp, George 

 (Brak River), Uitenhage, East London. ■« 



We have no information as to the present status of the insect in 

 this colony, as the replies to our letters of inquiry have not yet come 

 to hand.* 



In New Zealand. — From the paper containing Mr. Maskell's 

 original description of Jeer ?/ap?/rc/ias/ (Trans, and Proc. N. Z. Inst., 

 XI, 220, 1878), we learn that the insect was first noticed at Auckland. 

 A note by Mr. E_. A. MacKechnie (Ibid., XIV, 549, 1881)_ indicated that 

 it had greatly increased in presumably the same neighborhood in 

 1881. In Mr. Maskell's second paper (Ibid., p. 226) he mentions in a 

 foot-note that he had just received the insect from Napier. In his 

 third paper (Ibid., XVI, 140, 1883) he writes as follows: 



Icerya purcliasi lias spread greatly in the last two years. It had just reached Na- 

 pier at the date of my last paper. It has now established itself in that district not 

 only in gardens, but in the native forests. In Auckland it is attacking all sorts of 

 plants. * * •^' It has reached Nelson, and I have had many communications from 

 that place complaining of its ravages* * * * Whether 'this pest will spread in 

 our colder sovithern climate (Christchurch) as it has in the warmer north remains to 

 be seen. Our gardeners here are not in much dread of outdoor insects; they con- 

 fine their attention to those in greenhouses. They may be right; still the winter 

 even in Canterbury is not severe enough to kill these insects, and I know that in the 

 Christchurch public gardens many trees have had to be bm-nt simply on accoimt of 

 the ravages of Coccidce. 



We have no information on this point from this colony later than 

 1883, but have taken steps to ascertain the present spread of the pest. 



* Just as the report is being sent to the printer we learn from IVIiss Ormerod that 

 she has received specimens from Port Elizabeth, Cape Colony. 



