330 



As regards the specific differences, I can assure Mr. Skuse that there 

 was but one species in the specimens I described, nor can I find satis- 

 factory evidence of more than one in the material in the Dei)artment 

 collection, including nearly fifty specimens. Nevertheless, I will by no 

 means say there may not be two. In the examination of an abundance 

 of fresh material, Mr. Skuse is in a far better position to discuss such 

 characters than I am. That what was considered L. iceryce was bred 

 from both Icerya and Monophloebus might lead one to suspect two 

 forms, but would not be a strong evidence in itself. The same species 

 is frequently parasitic on different, sometimes numerous, hosts. The 

 specimens examined were bred from both Icerya and Monophloebus. 



There is a minute variation in the shape of the antennae. In many 

 specimens the third joint is rounded on the distal end, in others sub- 

 angulated in front below, almost as figured. The face, when the an- 

 tennae are removed, shows two subantennal grooves, separated by a 

 low ridge and reaching to the oral margin. The size of the shining 

 frontal triangle is a little variable; on either side the opaque orbital 

 triangle may be somewhat reduced in size. Along the vertical margin 

 of the occiput there is a row of short delicate bristles. In the thorax, 

 abdomen, or wings I can discover no differences, excei3t minor colora- 

 tional ones. The feet, in specimens that I suspect are immature, are 

 yellow, whereas in others they are luteous or even darker. None of 

 these differences would I consider other than varietal in the absence of 

 better evidence. 



A matter of greater interest at present is the geographical distribu- 

 tion of the genus and the validity of the present generic name. 



So far as the material at my command permits I feel better satisfied 

 with the species than with the genus. In my search for the genus I 

 overlooked Eondani's description of Cryptochoetum, Eondani (Bull. Soc. 

 Ent. Ital., 1875, 172), to which my attention was called later by Mik's 

 suggestion of the relationship. The characters, as given by the author, 

 though not very complete, apply well, as will be seen. Still, as the name 

 is already proposed, it will be premature to withdraw Lestophonus until 

 we have further information of Cryptochoetum. Especially would I 

 call attention to the peculiar genitalia here figured, no reference to 

 which is made by Eondani, though he knew both sexes. 



FiG.73.— Lestophonus iceryce: male genitalia. 



His generic description is as follows : 



Cryptochoetum. 



Auteuuso articulo ultimo latissimo et ad epistomium eloiigato, pra3sertim maris 

 maximo, snbquadrato, arista iu utroque scxu abortiva, iudistiucta — Oculi nudi — 

 Frons puberula, uoq setosa. 



