1893.) ^ 



Dv. Henderson, of Kingston, informs me that formerly there was a regular trafBc 

 to New Zealand, via Jamaica and Panama, so Ch. minor may have been taken from 

 one place to the other on plants. It is impossible to suppose that it is really in- 

 digenous in two such distant localities ! 



Mr. Morgan noted that some of the first lot of Ch. minor I sent him had been 

 attacked by parasites. 



Reverting now to the Mytilaspis ; Mr. Morgan wrote of Montego Bay examples, 

 that they were " Mytilaspis pandani, Comst., which I take to be = M. buxi, Sign., 

 for reasons explained in ' Observations on Coccidse, No. 8.' " This refers to a small 

 scale, which I had undoubtedly confounded with Chionaspis. The ? scales are very 

 similar, though the Mytilaspis is, of course, narrower, and notwithstanding the 

 generic difference, there is a good deal of similarity in the characters of the terminal 

 portion of the $ . The Diaspis resembles the Chionaspis in its S scale, but the $ 

 is very diiferent. 



As to the name vandalicus, I have seen no proper description of the species, and 

 as there is no means of telling which it is, the term had better be dropped. 



Recently T have found a reddish-brown Mytilaspis in Kingston, on cocoa-nut, 

 which seems to me to be identical with M. pandani, Comst., but it has a different 

 appearance from the Montego Bay scale, being larger and more strongly coloured. 

 The terminal segments of the females are very similar. This same larger scale also 

 occurs on Draceena, as recorded in " Journ. Inst. Jamaica," 1892, p. 55. 



Whether the differences here observed indicate two species must for the present 

 remain doubtful. 



(2). FioEiNiA noEiNi^ (Targ.-Tozz.). 



== JJhleria Jiorinice (Targ.), Comst. 



= Uhleria camellicB (Comst.), Comst. 



This species was fairly common on the leaves, and Mr. Morgan agrees with my 

 identification, though he calls the species Uhleria JtorinicB. He writes that it is 

 " Fiorinia camellice, Comst., afterwards altered in nomenclature by Prof. Comstock 

 to Uhleria camellice (Comst., 2nd Kep. Corn. Un. Exp. Stn., 1883, p. Ill), and 

 which I take to be equal to Fiorinia pellucida, Targ.-Tozz., = Diaspis fiorinice-, 

 Targ.-Tozz." 



I follow Mr. Morgan's decision as to the identity of the European and American 

 species, but cannot agree that the name Fiorinia should be abolished. The oldest 

 generic and specific names must be used, so long as we can be certain what they refer 

 to, and the combination Fiorinia JiorinicB is not contrary to usually-accepted rules. 

 It is the custom now, with many zoologists, even to admit generic and specific names 

 absolutely alike, such Cossus cossus, and, where priority demands it, this seems to 

 me advisable.* 



(3). AspiDiOTUS PALM^, n. sp. 



This was common on the leaves, and also occurs in Kingston. I have found it 

 only on cocoa-nut, whereas A.fieus (Riley), Comst., and A. articulatus, Morg., which 

 also occur on cocoa-nut in Kingston, infest a great variety of plants. 



* Mr. Morgan, having read the above, writes : " I do not see any reason why the old generic 

 name should not be maintained as Mr. Cookerell proposes. I note that Mr. Maskell also retains 

 the original generic name." 



