31 
as to the markings on immature females of the American species. The 
size of the American species agrees well enough with that of L. rubi 
but in the auteniuc we find tangible distinctions. Mr. Douglas clearly 
describes and figures the first joint as very short and the second much 
shorter than the third. The second is about as long as the fifth. In 
the American species, on the other hand, I find the first not very short, 
the second long and always considerably longer than the fifth. 
This, taken with the different locality, justifies us in considering the 
American scale distinct from L. rubi, at least so far as present infor- 
mation goes. 
It is hardly necessary to compare it with all the various American 
species, but it may suffice to say that I found myself obliged to con- 
clude it was L.fitchii or a new species. The legs and antennae agree 
well enough with fltchii. It is especially to be noted that in those 
antennal characters by which our scale differs from rubi it exactly agrees 
with fitchii. L.fitchii was from Washington. Why is it not now 
known to us if the present species is not it? Is it likely that our 
brambles would support in the northeast United States two different 
species of indigenous Lecanium ! 
But how about the size ? Signoret says, indeed, that it is the small- 
est species he knows; but he expressly states that his females had 
not yet formed eggs, and he speaks of the insect as flattened oval, with 
a dorsal keel. Does this not clearly show that he had to do with imma- 
ture examples, dead, and shriveled? Such being assumed, there is 
nothing in the account of fitchii which will not fit the specimens now 
under discussion. 
CONCLUSIONS. 
(1) So far as at present known all the Lecania of the Xortheast 
States and Canada found on Rubus must be referred to L. fitchii Sigu. 
(2) L.fitchii, so far as present evidence goes, must be held distinct 
from the European L. rubi Schr. 
(3) L. persicce, L. juglandis, L. fitchii, andX. rubi are allied species, 
but must be considered distinct. 
INSECTS INJURING DRUGS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. 
By Vernon L. Kellogg, Lawrence, Eans. 
Some jars of insect-infested drugs referred to me by the department 
of pharmacy of the University of Kansas led me to make a superficial 
examination of the drugs stored in glass, tin, wooden, and paper ves- 
sels in the store-rooms and laboratories of that department which 
resulted in noting the following drug-attacking insects: 
Sitrodrejm panicea Linn., attacking blue flag rhizome {Iris versicolor), 
comfreyroot (Symphytum officinale), dogbane root (Apocynum canndbi- 
