» MISC. PUBLICATION 344, U. 8S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
peach. It is possible, therefore, that at least some of these species may 
prove injurious in this country. 
The following discussion attempts (1) to modify certain published, 
but apparently ‘Incorrect, synonymy among the species of Parlatoria; 
(2) to call attention to some new synonymy that needs recognition; 
(3) to increase the available knowledge on the distribution and host 
relationships of the species discussed; and (4) to present information 
and illustrations to aid in the recognition of these species. 
Since the treatment is in no sense monographic, no attempt has 
been made to examine critically all structural characters of these 
insects, or to fix rigidly the limits of variation expected to occur in 
such structures, nor has more than the necessary incidental attention 
been given to the literature on the genus. Although published in- 
information on the distribution and host associations of these species 
has been considered, most of the information on these points that is 
included has come from a study of specimens in the national col- 
lection of Coccidae, many of which have accumulated from identifi- 
cation work. 
This study has been much aided by the type and other authentic 
specimens of various species of Parlatoria which have been presented 
to the national collection of Coccidae in past years. In addition, spe- 
cial mention should be made of the loan for study, by G. F. Ferris, 
of type specimens of Parlatoria cinerea, as this loan positively cleared 
up confusion respecting this species. 
The genus Parlatoria is here used in the currently accepted rather 
broad sense, and no attempt has been made to establish subgroups 
among the species discussed or to form opinions on various pub- 
lished proposals to place some of these species in other generic units. 
It is hardly possible to place too much emphasis on the fact that 
the species of Parlatoria consistently exhibit marked minor varia- 
bility in the anatomical structures which may be utilized to develop a 
classification that will satisfactorily differentiate the various species. 
Indeed, the extent of this normal variation within any one species, 
especially with respect to quantitative characters, such as numbers of 
pores, is such that it seems to be practically impossible to rely on 
single anatomical characters for positive recognition of a species. 
Details of such variation : appear in the discussions under the different 
species, and will show the limits observed in this study; but it should 
be recognized that the first specimen examined by a user of this pub- 
lication. may fall outside the limits of variation here recorded in 
respect to the condition of some of its characters. On the other 
hand, several specimens from any one lot of material should average 
within these recorded limits, and it is here recommended that such 
a series of specimens be examined by the student wherever this is 
practicable. 
Although the limitations of the photographic method of illustra- 
tion ? are “obvious, and in some instances conspicuous, it is believed 
that a definite advantage results from the presentation of the various 
structural characteristics in their natural setting. Line drawings of 
anatomical characteristics, some prepared in ‘careful detail, ‘have 
already been published for most of these species. 
2The photographic illustrations accompanying the discussion have been prepared in 
the Section of Illustrations by M. L. Foubert. 
Pyare 
—————EEE 
