52 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. IV, 



Then he mentions Aphis pini aut. and Aphis betulae autor to 

 go in this genus but as no reference is made to any one author 

 neither species can have a valid standing in this genus. 



As one of the species originally cited under the genus must 

 hold for the type of that genus then must one of the four valid 

 species be that type. 



Two of the four are unquestionably removed as types of 

 the genera Phyllaphis and Stomaphis, thus leaving only two for 

 the genus Lachnus. 



Lachnus punctatus if found to be distinct is the only species 

 which has not been definitely recognized and placed in a differ- 

 ent genus by the later writers, and it is the only species left for 

 the type of the genus. 5 Unless this species is located the 

 genus Lachnus must revert to the group containing L. fasciatus 

 Burm. as a type. 



A careful study of Lachnus viminalis Boyer, Boyer's descrip- 

 tion of that species, and Burmeister's description may ( . J I 

 show that L. viminalis Boyer is identical with L. punctatus 

 Burm. In that case Lachnus will be definitely established 

 with L. fasciatus as the type. If not then what is the genus 

 and what species can we refer to that genus? 



On the other hand in 1908 Mordilko 6 used L. viminalis 

 Boyer to form a new genus Tuberolachnus. Should this species 

 prove to be L. punctatus then L. fasciatus Burm. must be the 

 type of the genus Lachnus Burm., as it is the only species of 

 those cited by Burmeister left in that genus. Since L. fasciatus, 

 according to Del Guercio at aut., is a valid species I hold that 

 this species under the existing conditions must hold as the type. 



The next genus taken up in this tribe was Cinara Curtis, 

 as follows: 



The genus Cinara Curtis, 

 type A. pini Linn.? 

 He includes A. roboris Linn. 



5. April, 1910. Entomological News. The author gave Lachnus punctatus as 

 the type of the genus Lachnus because it seemed to be the only species which was 

 left for that genus, and at that time I was unaware of the fact that Mordwilko 

 (Annuaire Musie Zoologique de L'Academie Imperiale des Sciences, Vol. 13, 1908, 

 p. 374) had used Lachnus viminalis as the type of his genus Tuberolachnus. It is 

 impossible, however, with the present knowledge of the two above species to more 

 than place Lachnus punctatus as a doubtful synonym of L. viminalis for Lachnus 

 punctatus apparently cannot be clearly determined, and Boyer's description of 

 L. viminalis is too clear to be put aside. 



6. Annuaire Musie Zoologique de L'Academie Imperials des Sciences, vol. 

 13, 1908, p. 374. 



