3io 
hence  Koebele  already  on  his  first  voyage  to  Australia  (1888-89) 
collected  predators  of  Diaspinae,  having  succeeded  since  then  in 
sending  to  California  and  in  acclimatizing  Rhizobius  lophantae 
(Blaisd.).  On  his  other  trips  Koebele  sent  all  the  other  predators 
of  Diaspinae,  enumerated  above,  but  among  so  many  species  only 
a few  became  acclimated  in  California  ( Orcus  chalybaeus,  Aus- 
tralasiae Rhizobius  debilis,  ventralis)  and  they  did  not  yield  very 
good  results,  adding  only  to  the  indigenous  predators  and  to  vari- 
ous endophagi.  Of  these  there  are,  according  to  Howard,  eight 
species  of  the  genera  Apheiinus,  Aspidiotiphagus,  Anaphes, 
Physcus , Prospaltella , Ablerus , Rhopoideus,  but  none  of  them 
peculiar  to  Asp.  permiciosus.  In  California,  where  the  climate 
is  very  dry,  they  generally  succeeded  in  keeping  down  Aspidiotus 
to  an  almost  negligible  number. 
In  the  eastern  states,  on  the  other  hand,  where  A.  perniciosus 
continued  very  harmful  notwithstanding  the  presence  of  most  of 
the  mentioned  endophagi,  and  of  the  several  predators,  the  most 
active  among  them  Chilocorus  bivulnerus,  Muls.,  and  Microweisea 
( Pentilia ) miseila , Prof.  L.  O.  Howard  sent  C.  L.  Marlatt  in 
1901-02  on  a voyage  to  China  and  Japan,  in  order  to  solve  the 
still  very  uncertain  question  of  the  original  home  of  this  Aspi- 
diotus and  to  collect  the  possible  natural  enemies  in  that  region. 
As  a result  of  this  entomological  exploration  it  was  believed 
possible  to  establish  the  fact  that  Aspidiotus  perniciosus  is  a na- 
tive of  China  where  its  principle  enemy  capable  of  checking  its 
excessive  development,  according  to  Marlatt,  is  Chilocorus  simi- 
lis,  Rossi.  Marlatt  sent  many  specimens  of  this  species  to  Wash- 
ington, but  only  two  survived,  which  were  raised  in  cages  and 
furnished  in  1902  abundant  offspring  which  were  distributed  in 
various  regions  of  the  eastern  states  to  the  north  and  south  of 
Washington. 
The  colonies  in  the  north  did  not  give  any  good  results  while  in 
the  south,  specially  those  of  Georgia,  they  multiplied  rapidly  in 
1903-1904.  Notwithstanding  this,  here  also  Chilocorus  dimin- 
ished greatly  on  account  of  the  universal  use  against  Aspidiotusa 
of  a cheap  and  very  efficacious  artificial  remedy  and  when  in 
October  of  this  year  I tried  to  get  some  living  specimens  to  take 
to  Italy,  Prof.  L.  O.  Howard  with  his  proverbial  kindness  asked 
the  entomologist  of  Georgia  to  collect  and  send  to  Washington 
alive  a number  of  Chilocorus  sindlis , but  he  replied  that  he  had 
found  it  impossible  to  find  any.  With  the  artificial  remedy  which 
hindered  the  propagation  of  Chilocorus  similis  there  has  beer 
combined  in  North  America  the  work  of  an  endophagous 
hymenopterous  parasite,  which  decimated  in  Washington  the 
specimens  which  had  been  set  at  liberty  and  had  multiplied  in  the 
beginning. 
And  so,  up  to  now  at  least,  the  introduction  of  Chilocorus  simi- 
lis has  not  given  any  satisfactory  results  and  probably  will  not  do 
so  in  the  future  on  account  of  the  presence  of  an  active  parasite. 
