IQCX)] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEV/S. 591 



species of scale insects continued for some time. Comstock in 

 his Department Report (1880, p. 311) confuses the two species 

 Aspidiotus described respectively by Curtis and Fitch with this 

 Diaspis, which, however, he correctly describes and figures 

 from authentic specimens received from Signoret. Riley in 

 1881 (Index to Missouri Reports, p. 69) conionnAs Aspidiotus 

 harrisi (Walsh) {j= furfnrus Fitch) with this Diaspis, which 

 he credits, following Signoret, to Curtis ; and Lichtenstein in 

 the same year (Bull. Ent. Soc. Fr., p. 52) makes the same 

 confusion of Curtis' and Signoret' s (or rather Boisduval's) 

 insects,; and redescribes the former SiS Aspidiotus pyri. 



Again in his Cornell Report (1883, p. 94) Comstock repeats 

 the error indicated in his earlier work, but adds the very 

 interesting fact of the discovery by Matthew Cook of this 

 Diaspis on pear trees at Sacramento, making the first record 

 of its appearance in America. 



Goethe writing in 1884 (Jahrbuch Nass. Ver., etc., p. 114, 

 figs. 1-5), gives an illustrated account of this insect, probably 

 mixing it up, however, with Curtis' Aspidiotus, which he may 

 have found associated with it. 



The first indication of the fact of the distinctness of Curtis' 

 insect from Signoret' s or Boisduval's is given by Douglas (Ent. 

 Mo. Mag., 1887, p. 239), who shows that the two species belong 

 to different genera, and quotes a letter from Comstock confirm- 

 ing this fact. The status of these two species as indicated by 

 Douglas was later further confirmed by Morgan {op. cit. 1889, 

 P- 350). 



Neither of these last, however, in the articles cited, seemed 

 to have recalled the earlier name given by Boisduval, and 

 mentioned by Signoret, although they removed the confusion 

 hitherto existing between the Diaspis and the Aspidiotus. The 

 question of nomenclature was solved by designating the former 

 as Diaspis ostreaformis Signoret, and the latter as Aspidiotus 

 ostreaformis Curtis. 



Later Morgan (Ent. Mo. Mag., 1890, p. 42) discusses the 

 bibliography of this species and concludes from Signoret' s 

 language rather than from Walsh's description, which he had 

 not seen, that Coccus harrisi Walsh is identical with this Di- 



