1918.] BASHAMBAR Das: The Aphididae of Lahore. 267 
1891, that applies chiefly to Tuberolachnus viminalis. He remarked on the close simi- 
larity of the two forms, but was mistaken in saying that the characteristic dorsal 
process of the Salix Aphid is confined to the apterous viviparous female, while in the 
case of the Quetta Peach Aphid it is present in all stages. The obscure illustrations 
that accompany the description have apparently been drawn from the Salix Aphid. 
Buckton, therefore, was only redescribing Tuberolachnus viminalis, although he may 
have seen some apterous specimens of the real insect on peach, originally sent by 
Elliot. On this account Buckton’s name Lachnus fuliginosus appears as a synonym 
of Tuberolachnus viminalıs and the peach aphid is left without a name. After com- 
paring the Calcutta material and sending for the insect from Quetta and also satis- 
fying myself that no other reference to it was on record in the literature available in 
India, it was decided to give it a new name in our laboratory. 
Recently, however, a short paper has come under my notice, published in 1912 
from the Natural History Museum, Hamburg, by P. van der Goot and styled ‘‘ Uber 
einige Wahrscheinlich neue Blattlausarten.” In it a rather brief and in some res- 
pects incomplete account has been given of the salient features of the morphology of 
this insect, from alcoholic material, collected from almond branches in Palestine. He 
has called it Dryobius amygdali, n.sp. On referring to van der Goot it has furtheı 
been brought to light that the same insect is supposed to have been described before 
as Dryobius persicae by Cholodkowsky from some part of Russia. I have not been 
able here to trace the publication containing Cholodkowsky’s description, but the fact 
is mentioned on the authority of Mordwilko. I have, therefore, adopted Cholod- 
kowsky’s name, which is really quite appropriate, and I have furnished in these pages 
a rather detailed description of the various forms of the insect. 
The generic position of this insect is somewhat doubtful. ‘The long legs, short 
antennae and pigmented wings, in common with the habit of laying eggs in clusters, 
have a strong resemblance to the species of Dryobius on oak, etc. But the latter are 
totally devoid of any tubercles either on the dorsum or on the lateral sides. It is 
really this character, more than any other, that has been considered by Mordwilko 
of sufficient importance to warrant the separation of Lachnus viminalis into a new 
genus (Tuberolachnus) from the original Lachnus. The peach and the Salix Aphid 
possess these characters in common, besides others of minor importance, but their 
wings are quite different ; in the former they are deeply pigmented and in the latter 
clear and hyaline. 
Thus we have Tuberolachnus differing about as much from Lachnus as the peach 
Dryobius from the type of that genus (D. roboris). I have therefore for the present 
accepted Mr. van der Goot’s suggestion of calling it Tuberodryobius, even at the risk 
of forming a new genus for a single species. 
It may at the same time be mentioned here that as the genera Lachnus and 
Dryobius are not very sharply defined from each other, except in the case of the alate 
female, they might at some later revision be amalgated. It would also not be very 
wrong to keep Tuberolachnus viminalis and this peach Tuberodryobius in one genus, if 
too much importance is not attached to the pigmentation of the wings. They both 
