APPENDIX. 253 



by Latreille in 1802, at least till further light is 

 obtained of the identity of phalaridis, L., which is at 

 present unknown. 



" If, therefore, we adopt liesperidum as the type of 

 Coccus, the genera Galymnatns and Calypticus of 

 Costa, and Lecanium of Burmeister, will fall as syno- 

 nyms of Coccus, and a new sub-family name will have 

 to be substituted for Lecaniinss and also for the sub- 

 family now called Coccinae. 



" The species cacti, L.,as has been, shown by Professor 

 Cockerell, is a Monophlebus, and must be known by 

 the name Monopldebus cacti, L." But Cockerell, in a 

 later publication, f refers the cochineal insect and the 

 allied species to the genus Dactylopius (see Dactylopius 

 in Appendix). 



LECANIUM PEESIC^:, var. CORYLI (page 94). 



On the 3rd of April, 1903, Mr. Cockerell sent to me 

 the following communication : " Miss K. Fenn, Isle- 

 worth, Middlesex, sent me some Lecaniums she found 

 at Isleworth on red currant. I sent them to Mr. 

 George B. King, who says they are Eulecanium relii, 



King, described from Germany No doubt the 



species is the one called L. ribis, Fitch, in England, 

 but it is not Fitch's species." Unfortunately Miss 

 Fenn was unable to obtain examples for me, but I 

 have not the least doubt that they are specifically the 

 same as those described in this work as L. persicse, 

 var. coryli, Linn. Lecanium (Eulecanium) rehi, King, 

 will therefore fall as a synonym. 



I must here point out a grave error on my part 

 in making Linnaeus's L. coryli a variety of Geoffrey's 

 L. persicse, which is not permissible, seeing that the 

 description of the latter was published sixteen years 

 later than that of the former. As there is still some 



* ' Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad.,' 1S99, p. 261. 



f ' Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist.,' s. 7, vol. ix, .1902, p. 453. 



