ART. 17, MONOPHLEBINAE AND MARGARODINAE—MORRISON. 5 
Cotype.—Cat. No. 25266, U.S.N.M. 
Aside from his identification of this species as Monophlebus bur- 
meister, Westwood, a determination which appears to be wholly with- 
out justification, Maskell has hopelessly confused it by mixing to- 
gether, as one species, specimens from Yokohama, Japan, on Pinus, 
species, und from Hongkong, China, on Gardenia florida. 
The writers have been privileged to examine some very careful and 
detailed, but as yet unpublished, work? on the Japanese species of 
this genus, prepared by Prof. S. I. Kuwana, Director of the Imperial 
Plant Quarantine Station of Japan, and the results of this examina- 
tion, and of a careful study of specimens of his species in comparison 
with Maskell’s specimens, may be summarized as follows: 
1. No definite and tangible characters to separate the adult females 
of the species involved have been isolated thus far, the nearest ap- 
proach to such appearing in slight differences in the shape of the body 
and in the shape of the beak. 
2. The larvae appear to possess fairly tangible characters by which 
they may be distinguished, these occurring chiefly in the actual and 
proportional sizes of the body and its appendages, including the beak 
and the long marginal and apical setae, and in the size and shape of 
the tarsal claw. 
3. On the basis of the larva, Maskell’s specimens are quite obviously 
different from the species at present known to occur on Pinus at 
Yokohama. 
4. The adult females among Maskell’s specimens can apparently 
be divided into two lots, one of a single specimen, somewhat larger 
and stouter than the other three (2 mounted) and with a noticeably 
stouter beak. 
5. In view of the larval differences, and in the absence of any fur- 
ther evidence, the writers conclude that the single Maskell larva and 
the largest mounted adult female probably represent one species and 
this the species found in Hongkong. It is concluded further that 
the remaining three adult females in the Maskell collection are probably 
the same as the species now found on Pinus in Japan. 
6. The situation is still further tangled by the fact that Maskell 
lists the specimens from Yokohama on Pinus before the specimens 
from Hongkong, and these would logically receive the specific name 
maskelli in any splitting of Maskell’s species. 
7. In the apparent absence of any positive differentiating char- 
acters in the adult female, and the presence of these in the larva, 
the writers propose the restriction of the specific name maskelli (Cock- 
erell) to the single larva in the Maskell collection, and include with 
it doubtfully a single mounted adult female specimen. ‘This will 
2Published August, 1922. Bull. Imp. Plant Quar. Sta. Japan, No. 1, 1922, pp- 11-58, 12 pls. 
