31 
POSTSCRIPT. 
Since this Bulletin went to press I have received an interesting note 
from Dr. G. Leonardi, to whom I had communicated some of my view s 
by letter. One of the subgenera which I had proposed, having for its 
type A. seeretus, proved to be identical with a new genus (Odonaspis) 
of Dr. Leonardi's. I therefore adopt his name and suppress my own; 
though it is to be remarked that if Odonaspis is from odovs-d(T7riS it is 
equivalent to Odontaspis, preoccupied by Agassiz. Dr. Leonardi goes 
on to say that he would refer Melanaspis to Chrysomphalus, Xerophilas- 
pis to Targionia, and Gryptophyllaspis and Selenaspidm to Aspidiotus, 
s. str., in which they will represent sections. The change of Aspidites 
to Hemiberlesia is assented to, and the generic value of Chrysomphalus 
and Aonidiella is maintained. At the same time Dr. Leonardi has 
published (liiv. Pat. Veget., 1897) a preliminary classification of Aspir 
diotus, dividing it into the following groups, which are all regarded as 
genera: Aspidiotus, Aspidites, Chrysomphalus, Aonidiella, Targionia, 
Odonaspis, Chentrasjris, Phaulaspis — the last three new — and with 
Aonidia added. I can not at all agree with this classification, which 
throws into the same genus (Aonidiella) such diverse species as A. 
aurantii, pemiciosus, and mimosa', while it places pernieiosus nudaneylus 
in separate genera! However, it is intended only as a preliminary state- 
ment, and no doubt the author will greatly improve it in his detailed 
publication and explain away some of the apparent difficulties. 
