Genera and Species of Coccide. 133 
Section V.— Without lateral cottony tassels ; forming separate 
cottony sacs. 
? antennal 
/ 
Species. Author. Locality. formula. 
GUPUIUEA Sais x 5 oe sale Maskell. New Zealand. (8312) (456) 7. 
LGU SA MME Has He oe «Sie Maskell. Australia. 8 (231) 5 (467), or 
7 (241) 356. 
GROMITME hee Me Cs ig Maskell. Natal. 8 (3845) (721) 6. 
lobulatus ..........., Maskell. Australia. 823645 (71). 
[STN eae ER Cockerell. N. America. 8 (12) 3 (4567) 
LOURERERGL . oo. x > oie Cockerell. N. America. 7 (123) 465. 
PRORUELUET® Boe hatte paw Maskell. Sandwich Isl. 7 (21364) 5 
In the foregoing list D. /obulatus appears twice, tor the 
reason that it exhibits the lateral tassels and also constructs a 
cottony sac. 
In the insects marked * I find no mention of the first 
antennal joint. As a rule this joint is nearly equal to the 
second, but there are exceptions. 
I incline to the belief that D. hoye, D. liliacearum, and 
D., tuliparum are only synonyms of 1), adonidum. 
Cockerell (‘ Entomologist,’ 1893, p. 267) says that D. de- 
structor, Comstock, “is now regarded as a synonym of cétri.” 
The antennal formule of the two, according to the foregoing 
list, indicates some difference. 
In my ‘Further Coccid Notes,’ 1894, just published, I 
describe D. vastator from the Sandwich Islands, and mention 
that it approaches the Mexican species D. Yownshend?, 
Cockerell. Here, again, the antennal formule indicate 
divergence, although in this case I think that probably it is 
not sufficiently marked to constitute by itself a specific 
character. But, taking it in conjunction with the differences 
noted by me in the feet, spinnerets, and marginal spines, I 
shall still for the present leave L). vastator separate. 
D. theobrome, Douglas, is placed by its antenne very close 
indeed to D. longifilis, Comstock, and not far from D. jicés, 
D. pteridis, and D. brevipes; and D. talini would also come 
into this group were it not for another character (long radiating 
glassy threads) which distinguishes it. 
On the whole, whilst these ‘‘ antennal formule” cannot be 
considered as decisive for the whole genus Dactylopius, I 
believe that they may be very fairly used to separate the 
species belonging to Section I.; indeed, they are probably 
the best guides for that section. As regards the other sections, 
they may be usefully considered in conjunction with other 
characters, and may often indicate near relationships; for 
example, in Section II. D. simplex and D. virgatus are 
