1911] Notes on Synonymy of Lachnini 53 



This genus was formed in 1835 by Curtis, section 576, Vol. 

 12, of his British Entomology. 



He places two species in the genus. Aphis pi)ii Linn.?, 

 and Aphis roboris Linn. The first he gives as the type, but as 

 he places a question mark after Linn., the species is not valid, 

 and A. roboris Linn, which he describes in full is the type of 

 the genus? The generic names erected for that species since 

 that time are synonyms? 7 He gives the figures of the adults, 

 some of the parts, and also gives a good description. 



The synonymy of this genus would then be 



Cinara Curtis 1835 

 Pterochlorus Rondani 1848. 8 

 Dryobius Koch 1S55 Loc. cit. 



Dryaphis Amyot 1 ' which Del Guercio Loc. cit. p. 2(>2 has 

 given genus rank never was a genus name until given that rank 

 by Del Guercio. If we were to accept Amyot's names which 

 were mononomials and in this case means "Oak Aphid" there 

 would never be an end to the changing of names. The late 

 workers on the Ilemiptera refuse to look upon the work of 

 Amyot except as a curiosity. 



The next genus to be formed in the Lachnus group was 

 Stomaphis Walker loc. cit. with A. quercus Linn, as the type 

 and there is no discussion necessary on this genus name as it is 

 well established. 



Mordilko loc. cit. in 1908 deemed it necessary to erect 

 two new genera in this group, Schizolachnus Mord. with A. 

 tomentosus DeGeer as the type and Titberolachniis Mord. with 

 Lachnus viminalis Boyer as the type. 



In 1909 Del Guercio loc. cit. has placed both of the above 

 species in the genus Lachnus regardless of the fact that neither 

 were in the original genus and he removes to other genera all 

 of the original included species. If it is true that L. viminalis 

 Boyer and L. tomentosus DeGeer are both in the same genus 

 then must Tuberolachnus be the genus name with Schizolachnus 

 as a synonym and L. viminalis Boyer as the type. 



7. The question of the validity of this genus rests upon the fact that Curtis 

 did not give roborus as the type and the other species is questioned. The author 

 then concludes that the genus is in question and cannot be placed as a valid genus. 



8. Esapodi afidicidi in Nuove Ann. di Sci. Nat. Bologna, 184S. 



9. Ann. Soc. Ent. France vol. 5, ser. 2, p. 481, 1847. 



