2L0 [Soptembcr, 



Dalman's, those o£ the larva Signoret's. The descriptions and fig. of 

 the latter in every way agree with my specimens, indeed, the larva 

 might have been figured from them so exactly alike are they. Of the 

 $ , however, Signoret only had one specimen, from which his descrip- 

 tion was made. Had he have seen the various forms that I have, I 

 venture to state that he would have adopted the same synonymy. 



Eatzeburg's description and figs. {I.e.) with few exceptions un- 

 doubtedly agree with mine, which I have no hesitation in saying are 

 really identical with Eatzeburg's. His fig. 8 F of the under-side of 

 the adult $ is, however, very mechanical and misleading. The six 

 large cornicles shown on the ventral surface at the anterior extremity 

 cannot be more than accidental protuberances produced by the in- 

 equalities of the food-plant ; for this and the corresponding dorsal 

 portion fits very closely between the bud-scales and the branch, as 

 stated above, and as clearly illustrated by Eatzeburg's fig. 8 X F E. 

 The bud-scales, however, are very scantily shown ; generally much 

 more of the insect is hidden beneath them, which is of importance as 

 affecting the shape of the insect. The very prominent rostrum between 

 the cornicles, bearing the filaments, is also undoubtedly exaggerated. 

 But the long, broad, ventral carinas near the anus, producing the 

 " blunt cornicles " at the extremity and the long ventral slit between 

 them are exactly what I find in all my specimens. His fig. 8 P of the 

 larva compares exactly with my specimens, and, moreover, it also agrees 

 with Signoret's fig. of the larva of Phy. hemicryplius, Dalm. 



Signoret's figure of Eatzeburg's C. racemosus is undoubtedly a 

 reduced copy of that author's, and is very misleading, in that he has 

 left out the long and very characteristic ventral slit which is of the 

 greatest importance (Essai, p. 278, pi. xii, fig. 16). I had always 

 looked upon Signoret's fig. as showing the dorsal aspect of the ? , for 

 which it may well pass, and undoubtedly has passed. Signoret, at p. 

 275, gives an abridged description of the species, and states it might 

 possibly be the L. ahietis, Geoff. Later, at p. 282, he states that he 

 does not know the species, and is doubtful as to its position, and says 

 that he has provisionally placed it in the genus Lecanium, and then 

 again refers it to the ahietis of Greoffroy. 



I am very greatly obliged to Mr. -T. "W. Douglas for the valued 

 assistance he has rendered in the synonymy of the species ; without 

 his help this portion would have been left untouched. 



This very interesting species is an addition to our fauna. 

 Chester : May 11th, 1893. 



