330 



As regards the specific differeuces, I cau assure Mr. Sknse that there 

 was but one si)ecies iu the specimens I described, nor cau I fiud satis- 

 factory evidence of more than one in the material in the Dei)artment 

 collection, including nearly fifty specimens. Nevertheless, I will by no 

 means say there may not be two. In the examination of an abundance 

 of fresh material, Mr. Skuse is in a far better position to discuss such 

 characters than I am. Tiiat what was considered L. iceryce was bred 

 from both Icerya and Monophlcebus might lead one to suspect two 

 forms, but would not be a strong evidence in itself. The same species 

 is frequently parasitic on different, sometimes numerous, hosts. The 

 specimens examined were bred from both Icerya and jMonophloebus. 



There is a minute variation in the shape of the antenuic. In many 

 specimens the third joint is rounded on the distal end, in others sub- 

 angulated in front below, almost as figured. The face, when the an- 

 tennae are removed, shows two subantenual grooves, separated by a 

 low ridge and reaching to the oral margin. The size of the shining 

 frontal triangle is a little variable; on either side the opaque orbital 

 triangle may be somewhat reduced in size. Along the vertical margin 

 of the occiput there is a row of short delicate bristles. In the thorax, 

 abdomen, or wings I can discover no differences, except minor colora- 

 tional ones. The feet, in specimens that I suspect are immature, are 

 yellow, whereas iu others they are luteous or even darker. None of 

 these differences would I consider other than varietal in the absence of 

 better evidence. 



A matter of greater interest at present is the geographical distribu- 

 tion of the genus and the validity of the present generic name. 



So far as the material at my command permits I feel better satisfied 

 with the species than with the genus. In my search for the genus I 

 overlooked Rondani's description of Oryptochoetum, Rondani (Bull. Soc. 

 Ent. Ital.j 1875, 172), to which my attention was called later by Mik's 

 suggestion of the relationship. The characters, as given by the author, 

 though not very complete, apply well, as will be seen. Still, as the name 

 is already proposed, it will be premature to withdraw Lestophonus until 

 we have further information of Oryptochoetum. Especially would I 

 call attention to the peculiar genitalia here figured, no reference to 

 which is made by Rondani, though he knew both sexes. 



Fig. 73. — Lestophonus iceryce: male genitalia. 



His generic description is as follows: 



CryptochcBtum. 



Anteuna? articulo ultimo latissimo ct ad epistomium eloiigato, praesertira maris 

 luaximo, subquailrato, arista iu utroque sexu abortiva, indistincta — Oculi nudi— 

 Frous puberula, uoa setosa. 



