a | 
SCALE INSECTS OF THE GENUS PARLATORIA 8) 
ducts on segment anterior to the prepygidial row. No other dorsal ducts noted 
in this area. An approximately circular dorsal cicatrix well in from margin on 
each side of first abdominal segment. <A sclerotic fleck, much smaller than 
cicatrix and oval, anterior to each fourth lobe; no others noted. Lobes com- 
paratively small, approximately equal in size; inner pair distinctly notched 
once on each side; second pair di:tinctly notched on outer margin, slightly 
notched or more frequently sinuate on inner margin: third lobes as with 
second, very faintly notched if at all, inner margin sometimes appearing entire, 
not even sinuate; each fourth lobe normally represented by an angular pro- 
trusion, somewhat sclerotized and usually appearing definitely broader than in 
crotonis, With a more strongly protruding apical tooth aud characteristically a 
single small denticle on inner edge and 4 or 5 on sloping outer edge, but 
varying greatly in details of shape and structure, even, although rarely, re- 
sembling the third lobe in these respects; fifth lobes each represented by a 
marginal projection, this very strongly suggestive of the adjacent plates, dif- 
fering chiefly in that it is about half the length of a plate. Plates practically 
as in crotonis and related species. Paragenitals few in number, in 4 groups; 
= 
anterior laterals in specimens tabulated, range 4 to 11, average 7; posterior 
laterals, range 4 to 9, average 6; totals, range 19 to 33, average 25.8. 
In all the structural characters examined this insect is extraordi- 
narily close to P. crotonis. There are habitus differences, difficult to 
put in a description, but with the normal variation in structure the 
presence or absence of a strong prosomal spur is apparently the only 
constant and easily distinguishable characteristic for separating the 
two forms. Beyond this there are various collections, some previously 
placed as camelliae, from tropical Asia on several hosts that are left. 
In an uncertain status by this study. Morphologically they are ex- 
tremely close to this form, but exhibit certain minute differences in 
structure which with more detailed study of ample material may be 
shown to be of taxonomic significance. 
Published records have accumulated rapidly since 191% and include 
records on Acer (Aceraceae) from Japan; on Aeg/le (Rutaceae) from 
India; on Azadarachta (Melhaceae) from India; on Camellia (Thea- 
ceae) from Argentina, California, China, Italy, J: apan, Malta, and 
Sicily; on C itrus (Rutaceae) from China, French Guinea, Malta, Mis- 
sissipp1, and Spain; on Cape-jasmine (Rubiaceae) from Kansas 
(plants introduced from Louisiana); on Ci imnamomum (Lauraceae) 
from China; on croton (Euphorbiaceae) from Italy; on Hwonymus 
(Celastraceae) from Mississippi; on Jasminum (Oleaceae) from 
China; on JMJelia (Meliaceae) from India; and on V7tis (Vitaceae) 
from India. Surely some of these records are confused (for example, 
that on croton from Italy), but it may prove impossible to check the 
accuracy of many of them. 
A considerable number of specimens from the collections have been 
placed as this species, including some on Came/lia (Theaceae) from 
California, Georgia, Louisiana, “Mississippi, Oregon, and South Caro- 
lina in the United States; from France, Italy, and Switzerland, mostly 
at quarantine; and from Japan and Chosen; on camphor (Lauraceae) 
from Georgia and Louisiana; on sweet olive (Oleaceae) from Loui- 
siana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas; on “laurel” from 
Louisiana; on myrtle (Myrtaceae) from Mississipp1; and on Osman- 
thus (Oleaceae) from Louisiana in the United States; on C2trus 
(Rutaceae) from Italy; on Azalea (Ericaceae) and Huonymus (Celas- 
traceae) from Japan, on Osmanthus and Poncirus (Rutaceae) from 
Chosen; and on mango (Anacardiaceae) from Java. 
129579—39——2 
