130 Mr. W. M. Maskell on some 
on the gooseberries out of doors differed from those on the 
vines under glass. After careful examination I found that 
the two were essentially identical, and that they corresponded 
almost exactly with the species known in Europe as ‘‘Dacty- 
lopius adonidum,” or the common mealy-bug. I say “ almost 
exactly,” because neither in them nor in any similar insects 
have I ever been able to detect one external character which 
is mentioned by Signoret (‘Annales de la Soc. Entom. de 
France,’ Dec. 23, 1874, p. 307) and also by Douglas (‘ Entom. 
Monthly Magazine,’ vol. xxv. p. 314) in their descriptions of 
this species, viz.:—‘‘ Une bande brune sur le milieu du dos” 
(Sign.) ; “a broad brown or livid band-like shade” (Dougl.). 
During my study of Coccide, which extends now over twenty 
years, I have persistently endeavoured to minimize the 
importance of mere external colours and to lay stress upon 
anatomical characters only. But the occurrence of this insect 
in such suddenly injurious numbers, and its consequent 
importance, here led me to look into this question more 
closely in regard to the whole genus Dactylopius, and to try 
to tabulate, if possible, a principal character which might 
serve for ready differentiation in future. 
I may say here that 1 am clearly of opinion that the insect 
in the Hutt Valley is not indigenous to New Zealand. All 
the European species of Dactylopius (so far as I know) 
exhibit on their lateral margins a number of white cottony 
tassels of varying length. In New Zealand I have described 
seven species believed to be indigenous, and none of them 
possesses this very distinct feature. Moreover, although the 
Hutt Valley was in former times very densely clothed with 
heavy forest, it is now almost entirely cleared. Further, the 
Coccids in question have appeared only in gardens and houses 
devoted to Kuropean plants. 
The insects belonging to the genus Dactylopius may vary 
a good deal in their external appearance, and amongst the 
fifty or sixty which have been described some are aerial, some 
subterranean, some simply covered with thin meal, some 
having, in addition, cottony tassels, while others surround 
themselves with masses of cotton, and others form separate 
cottony sacs. Probably the best character by which to 
separate the species is one which requires by no means a 
difficult examination—I mean the relative lengths of the 
antennal joints in the adult female. This character may be 
very well made out without any long and tedious preparation 
of a specimen, and is therefore useful as a first guide to iden- 
tification. I am not to be supposed to ignore other perhaps 
very distinct characters. 
