NOTES ON ICERYA— ITS PROBABLE ORIGIN THE ISLANDS OF BOUR- 
BON AND MAURITIUS. 
C. Y. Riley in Pacific Rural Press, June 11, 1837. 
I have just read with a great deal of interest the letter of W. M. Mas- 
ked to State Inspector Klee, in your issue of the 7th instant. This letter 
really brings up quite an important question, so far as our White or Fluted 
Scale is concerned. In an article in my forthcoming report, as United 
States Entomologist, of which I have sent you advanced page proofs, 
I have, without question, assumed that Icerya purehasi Masked was a 
good species and distinct from I. sacchari Signoret, because Masked, 
in his second article on the former species (Trans. New Zealand Inst, 
for 1883, page 140), after an examination of specimens of I. saccliari , 
sent him by Signoret, says that he finds the “ Mauritian species un- 
doubtedly and markedly distinct,” This letter to Mr. Klee brings up, 
however, the whole question of the accuracy of his determination. He 
admits that he has never seen Signoret’s I. sacchari alive. The only 
differences which he made in 1883 between 1. sacchari* and I. purehasi 
are as follows : sacchari does not seem to form an ovisac with longi- 
tudinal grooves, nor does the body of the insect, although somewhat 
hairy, show the great tufts of black hairs and the curious projecting 
glassy tubes springing from large brown coroneted bases which are 
marked features of I. purehasi. The number of circular spinneret ori- 
fices are much smaller in the Mauritian insects.” 
Now Signoret knew only two stages, the full-grown female and the 
newly hatched larva, while Masked gave careful descriptions of the 
egg, the young larva, the second stage, and the full-grown female, but 
had not seen the male larva, cocoon, or adult. It is for this reason that 
I have given a very full characterization of the species in the article 
already alluded to. 
Signoret’s description, so far as it goes, applies thoroughly well to I. 
purehasi in some of its forms. His female had not formed the cottony 
or fiuted-egg covering, at least he makes no reference to it. His figure, 
while showing a short truncated mass, does not indicate the flutings 
because the few lines upon it are evidently intended by the artist for 
