12 MISC. PUBLICATION 344, U. S: DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
from China, Java, Philippine Islands, Siam, and Straits Settlements 
in the southeastern Asiatic area; and from Samoa and Tahiti among 
the Pacific Islands. Specimens examined from other hosts and local- 
ties include examples on jasmine and an undetermined host from the 
District of Columbia (greenhouse), on Viburnum (Caprifoliaceae) 
from Maryland (greenhouse), on Mangifera (Anacardiaceae) from 
Jamaica, on Bougainvillea (Nyetaginaceae) from Central America, 
Jamaica, on Bougainvill Nycta; ) 
on rose (Rosaceae) from Mexico, on gardenia (Rubiaceae) from 
Brazil, and on undetermined hosts from India, New Caledonia, and 
the Marquesas Islands. 
PARLATORIA CROTONIS Douglas 
(Bl 3, AG ple SAGs pls Tose) 
First established by Douglas (17, p. 242) as a variety of Parla- 
toria profeus, this insect has been variously considered as a variety 
or even & synonym of proteus or of P. pergandw as recently as 
1935, although Cockerell (9, p. 59) expressed the opinion in 1902 
that it is a definitely recognizable species. Although no specimens 
from those on which Douglas actually based his name have been 
available for examination, there seems to be no question of the iden- 
tity of his specimens with those collected subsequently on croton 
from many sources. 
The form appears to be recognizable whenever it is encountered, 
and its acceptance as a distinct species seems much to be preferred 
to a varietal association that has no biological or genetic background 
to support its validity. 
Adult female—Hyespot consistently developed, in all specimens in which the 
condition can be satisfactorily observed, into a stout spur, usually conspicuous 
owing to protrusion from the body margin.’ Anterior spiracles with 2 or 3 
pores adjacent; posterior spiracles with a small dermal pocket about one-third 
the distance from spiracle to margin and clearly visible in carefully stained 
specimens. Duct tubercles low conical but with a roughly circular area of vary- 
ing extent and intensity of sclerotization around the base of each, few in num- 
ber, prespiracular 1 or 2, anterior spiracular usually 2, intermediate 2 to 4, 
posterior spiracular 8 to 5, first abdominal 1 to 8. Submarginal dorsal tubular 
ducts moderate in number, extending from apex of pygidium onto second abdom- 
inal segment, 28 or 29 present; intermediate and median dorsal macroducts lack- 
ing, but with intermediate microducts, usually 1 or 2 above the anterior lateral 
paragenitals, on each side, within the dorsai sclerotized area, but these often 
wanting, and on each side 3 or 4 on the preceding segment just at the anterior 
edge of the sclerotized area. No dorsal cicatrix noted on abdominal segments. 
No independent dorsal sclerotic flecks noted near margin on pygidial segments. 
Three pairs of normally developed lobes almost equal in size, the second and 
third slightly smaller, sometimes with median lobes plainly broadest and the 
other 2 graduated in size, all relatively slender, first and second conspicuously 
notched on both inner and outer margins, third lobe usually only on outer mar- 
gin but with inner margin somewhat sinuate; fourth lobe represented by a 
small but definitely sclerotized, angular protrusion of the body wall having 
characteristically 1 long and 2 or 3 minute projecting teeth; fifth lobes repre- 
sented by a very similar projection. Plates between posterior 3 pairs of lobes 
narrow, but narrowly spatulate rather than ligulate; remainder all broad to 
very broad, continuing onto posterior angle of first abdominal segment; those 
on first 3 abdominal segments tending to a rounded or somewhat pointed tip, 
5 At a point dorsally approximating that at which the eyespot might occur a cicatrix is 
visible that is somewhat suggestive of the structure called the eyespot in some other 
species, making it possible that this spur has been misinterpreted and that it should be 
considered a distinct structure. 
