658 
results they have yielded; in fact, this whole 
paragraph reminds one more of the efforts of 
an attorney with a bad case to indulge in dis- 
paragement of the opponent rather than the 
introduction of evidence. In discussing at 
length, as Professor Cockerell does, the diffi- 
culty in determining what are good specific 
characters, very safe ground for dilation is found, 
but unfortunately this discussion has little bear- 
ing on the criticisms in the original article 
which applied for the most part to the use of 
trivial characters, or such as have no relation 
whatever to the insect itself, but rather to its 
coverings and general surroundings. 
Coming now to the example of the kind of 
work mentioned, and the complaint is made 
that the writer has generalized on very insuffi- 
cient grounds, the synonyms for which Professor 
Cockerell is responsible of a single species will 
be considered, and these furnish ample material 
to illustrate the faults alluded to. The species 
taken to serve this purpose is Aspidiotus lataniz 
Sign., hitherto known in this country as Aspidi- 
otus cydonie Comst.,* and variously by Profes- 
sor Cockerell as the species last mentioned and 
also convexus Comst., punice Ckll., greenii Ckll., 
lateralis Ckll., and crawii Ckll. In other words, 
the synonyms of this species, as given by the 
writer in arecent number of the Canadian Ento- 
mologist, indicates that within the last three or 
four years Professor Cockerell has redescribed it 
not less than four times, besides indicating a 
fifth form by reference of material to ‘ convexus 
Ckll. not Comst.’ 
If one examines the characters on which Pro- 
fessor Cockerell separated these supposed new 
species, now shown to be synonyms of lataniz, 
* Aspidiotus latanize was described so briefly by 
Signoret that without an examination of the types it 
was altogether impossible to recognize the species in 
new material, and the failure to do so hitherto has 
every excuse. Fortunately, Mr. E. E. Green has 
recently been able to examine Signoret’s types and 
has drawn up a careful and full description of the 
species, accompanied by an excellent figure of the last 
segment of the adult female insect. He points out 
the close resemblance of Signoret’s species to Com- 
stock’s cydonix, and a comparison which I have made 
of Mr. Green’s description and figure with type ma- 
terial of cydoniz shows conclusively the identity of 
Comstock’s species with Signoret’s. © 
SCIENCE. 
[N. 8. Von. X. No. 253. 
their trivial, if not farcical, nature will be ap- 
parent. 
Before considering the status of these syno- 
nyms, it may be said in explanation that when 
Professor Cockerell was last in Washington he 
was invited by the writer to examine the type 
material representing them in the Department 
collection and to point out the characters upon 
which the species are based, the original descrip- 
tions having been very inadequate. He made 
such study and was unable to give structural 
characters of the insects themselves, but sub- 
mitted a synoptical table based chiefly on the 
scale covering, as indicating his reasons for 
believing the species to be good. This table 
follows: 
PROFESSOR COCKERELL’S TABLE. 
1. Exuvie dark brown or black....................0--.--- 2 
Exuviz pale orange or brownish..............+.2+.+- 3 
2. Lower Sonoran and tropical.......... cydoniz Comst. 
Upper Sonoran, on Salicaceze and Melia 
convexus CkIl. not Comst.* 
3. Exuviz central or almost in the mature ? scale. 4 
Exuviz lateral or sub-lateral in the mature 2 
scale (circumgenital glands few, groups of 2- 
BSC) )Gosecos ccaosdssocceosbanduaHoonoDEAnoscoDdooDCODDcaC00 5 
4. Scale snow white ; on Punica............ punice Ck). 
Scale greenish ; mostly on Palms....... greentt Ckll. 
5. Scale grayish brown; inner notch of median 
lobes absent, spines longer............ lateralis Ckll1- 
Scale rather larger, reddish gray ; inner notch of 
median lobes distinct ; spines shorter ; proc- 
esses of first interlobular interval short united 
crawtt Ck1l. 
To appreciate this table it should be explained 
that the species concerned lataniz, secretes in 
the case of the female a convex circular scale, 
and moults twice, the cast skins or exuvie, and 
especially the second and larger one, ultimately 
becoming brownish in color and forming part of 
the central portion of the scale covering. The 
scale secretion proper is of white wax, but isasa 
rule discolored by a thin shale of bark carried 
up over it and by the dirt or mould which ac- 
cumulates on the bark or on the scale itself. The 
exuviz attach to the inner central portion of 
the scale and show through it as a brownish 
* Some of the material thus referred actually repre- 
sents an apparently undescribed species, but not that 
on the food plants mentioned. R 
