igoo] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 593 



which it bears no relationship have been assigned to it as syn- 

 onyms ; (3) that though many times described and several 

 times figured in hterature, it was first characterized as a new 

 species in 1894 ^^ entire ignorance of the older literature ; and 

 (4) that it was later again renamed in an effort to straighten 

 out the difficulties of nomenclature which surrounded it in 

 ignorance of the new name just referred to. 



So far as the status of the names asssigned at various times 

 to this insect are concerned, pyrioi Boisduval, and ostrecBfonnis 

 of Signoret, are on exactly the same basis except in point of 

 priority ; in other words, both are based on misidentifications. 

 In about the same category are the names circularis and fur- 

 furus of Fitch, and harrisi of Walsh, all being erroneous refer- 

 ences. Of the new names assigned to it, pyricola of Del Guercio 

 has priority over fallax of Horvath. It therefore merely becomes 

 a question between /_yrz, Boisduval, bmA Pyricola, Del Guercio. 

 Either we must accept Boisduval 's species as valid on the ground 

 that he was the first to name and describe the insect, or throw 

 it out for the technical reason that the name was based on an 

 error, and substitute Del Guercio' s name. The writer's prefer- 

 ence would be to accept the name given by Boisduval, which, 

 while based on a misidentification, is new to the genus Diaspis, 

 unfortunately for this view, however, it conflicts with the rule 

 of zoological nomenclature which rejects any "specific name 

 which undoubtedly rests upon an error of identification." If 

 this rule be followed, this insect must be known as Diaspis 

 pyricola (Del Guercio) Saccardo, 1895. 



As to the occurrence of this Diaspis in the United States, the 

 records so far show it only from California, although it very 

 likely occurs elsewhere on the Pacific slope and possibly east 

 of the Rocky Mountains. As noted above, it was reported 

 from California by Comstock in 1883 from specimens on pear 

 sent by Matthew Cook from Sacramento. Cockerell has also 

 reported receiving it on Prumis from California, and we have 

 had it within the last year on dried California prunes sent to 

 us by Dr. L. Reh, Hamburg, Germany. 



A leaflet entitled "The Pacific Tree and Vine," printed at 

 San Jose, Cal., January 13, 1900, reports the occurrence about 



