34 
HUNTER: C'OCUID.E OP KANSAS, III. 
circular in pergandei, oblong in proteus; by the fourth lobe : present 
in pergandei, absent in proteus. 
It is upon these characters that specimens in hand are determined 
as pergandei. Comstock’s comparisons were probably made without 
specimens of proteus at hand, since he mentions in a foot-note Sig- 
noret’s figures and description.'’ Later, however, Comstock speaks of 
receiving siiecimens of proteus from Signoret," confirming his con- 
ception of this species. 
The exact status of pergandei, however, does not seem to be fully 
settled. Professor Cockerell in his first check-list cites pergandei as 
a distinct species," and in his first suiijilement it is located as a variety 
of proteus* I have received it from Mr. Craw on orange from the 
type locality, Florida, labeled in agreement with Cockerell’s supple- 
ment. Mr. C. L. Marlatt, who is now studying the genus, says “per- 
gandei Comst. (merges into proteus Curt.)”" Doctors Berlese and 
Leonardi place Comstock’s variety of pergandei, oamelue, as protexis, 
var. carnelia’,^* and other instances likewise might be cited. 
With pergandei on orange branches from Florida (Craw), the per- 
gandci under consideration on orange leaves and branches from a 
Lawrence greenhouse, pr.deus on Pinus insignis from Perth, Aus- 
tralia (Ckll.), and proteus on leaf of an orchid, Watagode, Ceylon 
((rreen), before me, the following notes are made: Regarding the 
form of scale of female, I find “circular” scales among proteus and 
“elongate” scales among pergandei. No steadfast distinction either 
in shape or color of the female scale can therefore bo noticed. Con- 
cerning the pygidium, the proteus on Pinus and the orchid show, in 
accordance with Comstock, the presence of plates in the location 
where the pointed fourth lobe is found in pergandei. Proteus further 
shows marginal undulations apparently independent of the lobes, the 
crests situated bmioath (ventral aspect) the lobes and extending out 
about one-third the length of the lobes. These undulations are shown 
in the figure and are characteristic of the proteus on Pinus. They 
are not noticeable on the orchid insects. 
Proteus, further, is not recoi'ded, as far as I can ascertain, existing 
upon orange. I have received specimens in exchange on orange la- 
beled but discriminations made upon the above basis showed 
the insects to be undoubtedly pergandei. Tlie undulations along the 
jiosterior margin oi proteus may be fairly constant; their presence in 
this one lot on Pinus does not warrant a statement of their piu'ma- 
5. Rop. Coram’r A(?r. 1880, p. 327. 
6. 2(1 Rep. Dept. Kut. Cornell Univ. 1883, p. 114. 
7. Boll. III. St. Lnl)., vol. IV, p. 'm, 1896. 
8. Bull. 111. St. Lab., vol. V, p. 397, 1899. 
9. Marlatt, MSS. 
10. Cliormothoca Italia, Fascicola I, No. 2. 
