1893.] Notes on the Cochineal Insect. 1043 
not that in 1888 Mr. Douglas described a Coccus agavium, found 
on Agave—not a cochineal insect. It is true that the recent 
literature contains some other nominal species of Coccus, such 
as C. laniger W. F. Kirby, 1891, but in so placing them, their 
authors have reverted to the Linnean use of the term, ignoring 
genera as now defined. 
From an examination of cochineal insects from Jamaica, 
Mexico, and New Mexico, I have come to the conclusion that 
the above-mentioned definition and classification need entire 
revision. This conclusion may be wrong, and was only 
reached with much hesitation—but it seems sufficiently clear 
after considering all the evidence. 
The specimens examined are: 
1. From the Parade Garden, Kingston, Jamaica, on Opuntia : 
= Coccus cacti L. 
2. From Silao, Mexico, on Opuntia tuna, from Dr. A. Dugès: 
= Coccus tomentosus Lam. 
3. From Guanajuato, Mexico, from Dr. A. Dugès := Coccus 
tomentosus Lam. 
4. From Las Cruces, New Mexico :— Coccus confusus n. sp. 
The Silao insect is Lichtenstein’s Acanthococcus; there can be 
no doubt about this as Lichtenstein had his specimens from Dr. 
Dugés, who assures me they are the same. All the others, 
however, are strictly congeneric with this, and therefore either 
Acanthococcus tomentosus is a Coccus, or all belong to Acantho- 
coccus. 
Acanthococcus, as stated above, has been recorded from 
Europe and New Zealand. Maskell sinks the genus as a syno- 
nym of Eriococcus, which he defines thus: 
* Adult female enclosed in an elongated sac of white or yel- 
low felted cotton ; body elongated, segmented ; anal tubercles 
conspicuous ; feet and antenne present ; several rows of coni- 
cal spines on dorsal surface. Antenne of six joints" The 
anogenital ring is also said to have hairs. 
This does not precisely agree with C. tomentosus, but on 
comparing that insect with the published descriptions of Erio- 
coccus spp., the affinity is evident. 
The Jamaican specimens agree very closely with Coccus cacti, 
