NO. 34.] HEMIPTERA OF CONNECTICUT: APHIDIDAE. 253 



oviparous, — the parthenogerietically produced larva incompletely 

 developed when deposited and protected by an egg membrane . . . 



Family PHYLLOXERIDAE or CHERMESIDAE 2 

 Fore wing with four oblique veins; the stigmal vein (Rs) present 

 (except when incomplete or wanting in Calaphis) ; the second 

 vein (M) simple or once or twice branched; the single annual 

 gamogenetically produced generation, only, developing externally 

 as eggs ; the parthenogenetically produced larva completely devel- 

 oped when deposited, rarely with a pellicle from which it frees 

 itself at once Family APHIDIDAE 3 



2. Antenna of alate female with five segments. Always on conifers 



Chermes, p. 329 

 Antenna of alate female with three or four segments. Never on 

 conifers Phylloxera, p. 330 



3. Tarsi all atrophied 4 



Tarsi not atrophied 5 



4. Antenna with five segments Mastopoda APHIDINI, p. 311 



Antenna with six segments [Atarsos] APHIDINI 



5. Hind tarsus not excessive in length 6 



of Aphididae Passerini, are well-nigh certainly established as an independent 

 family though for convenience a few old-fashioned people still speak of 

 them in subfamily terms. The genus Aphis has been threatened with a 

 disaster as great as has ever befallen a zoological name but has happily 

 been allowed to retain her association with certain of her adopted species. 

 To be sure many of her daughters have been christened anew, a ceremony 

 long needed and prophesied more than thirty years ago by Oestlund (1887). 



There have been spasms in the present aphid upheaval which remind one 

 of a red revolution, with each individual species not only shrieking for a 

 generic name of her own but also the liberty of flaunting an unlimited 

 number of trinomials by virtue of which our common and well-known pea 

 aphid has been published fourfold as follows; Acyrthosiphon pisi pisi, 

 Acyrthosiphon pisi destructor, Acyrihosiphon pisi turanicum, and Acyrthosi- 

 phon pisi ussuriensis. 



With such extreme radicalism the writer has no personal sympathy but 

 on the other hand most of the recent systematic work with aphids has been 

 concerned with legitimate and logical changes resulting necessarily from 

 intensive study with a family of insects the nomenclatural history of which 

 is crowded with both synonyms and composite species— a natural and healthy 

 growth. It is therefore not in a spirit of adverse criticism that the present 

 paper is allowed to go to press already out of date in many respects before 

 it is published. It is rather that the writer feels that there may be a place 

 for a connecting link between the aphid literature of yesterday and that of 

 to-morrow. 



It should be stated therefore that this paper is not prepared especially 

 for the use of systematic aphidologists. The works recently published (or 

 still in preparation) by Messrs. Baker, Oestlund, Swain and Wilson need no 

 addition that the writer is equipped to make. It is rather offered, in a spirit 

 of sincere human sympathy, to the "lay entomologist" who is experiencing a 

 mental (and perhaps a moral) struggle in learning for example to call the 

 insect he has long known as Aphis avenae Fab. by the name Rhopalosiphum 

 prunifoliae Fitch. 



Criticisms or suggestions or determinations by practically all the aphid 

 workers of America should be gratefully acknowledged, though the writer 

 should be held accountable for the keys as they stand except as follows: 

 Dr. A. C. Baker contributed the section devoted to the Callipterini and 

 determined the insects belonging to this tribe ; Mr. Asa Maxson contributed 

 the Pemphiginae; and Mr. H. F. Wilson prepared the Lachnid portion. 



