256 Memoirs of the Indian Museum. INOLSNE 
In 1908 Mordwilko included Phyllaphis in his tribe Callipterina and in this he 
has been followed by van der Goot in 1913. But American authors like Ashmead, 
Gillette and Wilson do not seem to agree in regarding Phyllaphis as a Callipterine 
genus at all. The characters proposed for Callipterina by van der Goot in “ Zur 
systematik der Aphiden’ are as follows :— 
(i) Body bare, with short sting-like hairs or with long capitate hairs. Wax- 
glands very seldom present. 
(ii) Antennae seven-jointed ; very seldom six-jointed ; last joint scaly or with 
indistinct small corns; primary sensoria Se and secondary very 
often with hair-rims. > 
(iii) Cornicles very small, somewhat cone-like ; very seldom Ropes an 
(iv) Cauda almost always “ wart-like’’ ; seldom not or hardly constricted. Anal 
plate often bilobed ; rudimentary gonapophyses two. | 
(v) Cubitus twice forked ; tarsi with two “ haftlappchen ” (‘‘ hold lappets’’). 
The Callipterini if defined in this comprehensive way would include Phyllaphis 
and for that matter Shivaphis as well. But the part of the definition relating to 
Phyllaphis is chiefly made up of characters that are more exceptional than normal. 
They are given in italics above. They evidently introduce an element of heterogeny 
into a group otherwise noted for its uniform nature. Most writers have thought so 
and among the most recent we may mention Wilson, vide his ‘‘ Key and Synonyms of 
the genera in the tribe Callipterini (Canad. Entom., XLII 1910). Essig has followed. 
him (Pom. Coll. Jour. Ent., IV, no. 3, 1912). 
The chief reason why Phyllaphis has not been recognised as a Callipterine genus 
seems to be that externally it had little in common with the Callipterinae, while with 
the Lachninae it agreed at least in having an aborted antennal spur and small cor- 
nicles. But it was probaby placed there more for lack of any definite group to receive 
it than for any true affinity with Lachnus. - 
This point has been emphasised recently by Mordwilko and van der Goot, who 
have taken the same number of “ rudimentary gonapophyses’’ and the presence of 
‘‘haftläppchen ’’ on the tarsi as the main grounds for grouping it with the Callipterine - 
genera. For the aberrant characters the definition has been apparently stretched. 
That the views of Mordwilko and van der Goot are nearer the truth is strikingly 
proved by the discovery of the Indian genus Shivaphis. Along with many of its 
pronounced resemblances to Phyllaphis in the wax-glands, cornicles, etc., the 
possession of a bilobed anal plate and pigmented wings show a decided relationship 
with the Callipterinae. 
But it still seems very hard to imagine that genera like Phyllaphis and Shivaphis 
could possibly have originated from Callipterine ancestors. Even if we leave aside 
other characters, there is little parallel or justification in regarding a replacement of 
sting-like hairs in one by wax-glands in the other as of minor importance and of 
conceivable occurrence in the same sub-family. 
In my opinion, now that we have at least two genera, they have every claim to 
be recognised as forming a separate group or a subgroup of their own. It would be 
