304 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 1909. 



on pinicorticis since Mr. Shimer by error merged pinifoliae with 

 pinicorticis about 40 years ago*, the NAME pinifoliae is confused 

 with pinicorticis both in the discussion and bibliography. It 

 is evident from the context, however, that neither Mr. Shimer, 

 Professor Osborn or Mr. Storment had observed the INSECT 

 pinifoliae and for this reason the mistake in synonymy is very 

 easily corrected. 



CONCLUSION. 



The present paper deals with six gall forming Chermes of 

 Maine conifers. The gall host and the alternate host, where 

 there is one, has been in each case ascertained. No attempt 

 has been made to follow the development of the winter gene- 

 ration. With three species of Chermes making galls on the 

 white spruce and four on black spruce in one locality it is apparent 

 that a detailed study of the winter generations could only be 

 carried on satisfactorily on conifers raised from seed under 

 quarantine. 



A glance at fig. 134 where Chermes similis is seen ovipositing 

 on galls of Chermes floccus is sufficient to suggest the confusion 

 possible. 



Both the galls and the winged individuals give characters 

 sufficient to determine these six species, however, and these 

 have been figured in each case. 



Illustrations. The photographs published are selected from 

 many taken by Mr. R. L. Hammond and have been a constant 

 aid in recording permanently certain changing phases of the 

 work of these Chermes, and have been a necessary part of the 

 study. The drawings were made by Miss Charlotte M. King who 

 spent most of the summer of 1909 at the Maine Agricultural 

 Experiment Station. The structural details for each form figured 

 were worked out independently by Miss King. During the 

 same time the writer studied carefully with each species the 

 arrangement and number of wax gland areas, the character 

 of the antennal sensoria, wing characters and other significant 

 points and the drawings as they stand record both Miss King's 

 Observations and my own critical interpretation, no detail that 

 seemed important being left until sufficient material was exam- 

 ined for a mutual agreement. 



* For discussion see pp. 277-289 in this present paper. 



