204 
| February, 
Pour completer l’histoire du Dorthesia Delavauxii, j’en donne ici la figure 
dessin^e par notre habile confrere M. Theodore Descourtilz. Nous y sommes entres 
dans les details que ne presentent nullement ni les deux figures qui accompagnent 
les articles consacres au Dorthesia characias dans le journal du celebre abbe Rozier, 
ni celle publiee par Degeer (Mem., vii, pi. 44, fig. 26), # et representant le Coccus 
farinosus, espece de Dorthesia que Modeer a recueillie sur lesfeuilles seches du sapin, 
et qui, mieux observee, fera la troisieme espece du genre dont je viens de vous 
entretenir.” 
In the figures of the £ the antennae and wings are not represented 
of the length described ; the head has two projecting lamellae, and the 
anterior part of the stout body only has, apparently, large tufts or 
lamellae, the sides having four striae, which may be intended to repre- 
sent longitudinal lamellae, for there appear to be posteriorly recurved, 
conjoined lamellations. The head is both described and figured as 
having a long rostrum. The ? is figured as an oval sac without any 
imbrication, dorsal or lateral, except anteriorly, and the antennae are 
described as having but five joints. 
Altogether this insect is an enigma, which Signoret has not at- 
tempted to solve, and although he places it as synonymous with O. 
urticce , some only of the characters are problematically in accordance 
with this species, while the existence of a long rostrum in the <$ , 
which is both described and figured, goes to show that the insect is no 
Orthezia , nor any other of the Coccina. 
Orthezia dispar , Kaltenbach, was never described, so far as I can 
ascertain; it is given thus by Kaltenbach in “Die Pfianzenfeinde,” 
p. 486 (1874) : “ Dorthesia dispar ? = urticce , Brm.” It is, therefore, 
merely a superfluous name. 
In the “Natural History Transactions of Northumberland and 
Durham,” iv, 370 (1872), the late Mr. T. J. Bold has the following 
note : — 
“ Dorthesia characias, Latr., West. Intro., vol. i, frontispiece, fig. 8, d ; vol. ii, 
445, fig. 118,20, $ ( D.cataphricta ). The female of this curious creature was taken 
in Cold Martin Moss, Wooler, by Mr. Hardy. I once had a bunch of the culms of 
grass brought to me which had attached to them what might be the egg-bundles of 
this insect ; they were silky-white, about the size and shape of a stout grain of rye, 
and full of pink-coloured eggs.” 
Now, it is erroneous to attribute characias to Latreille, and also 
to state that cataphracta is the female of that species ; further, it is 
very doubtful if the “ egg-bundles ” were produced by a Dorthesia , 
for it is not recorded by any observer that any egg-bag of this insect 
* This “ fig. 26 ” (erroneously printed “ fig 6 ” at p. 174 ante) represents Coccus floccosus, which 
De Geer described and figured as a new species communicated to him by Modeer. Coccus farinosus 
is a widely different creature described and figured by De Geer (Mem., vi, 442, 3, pi. 28, fig. 16—22 
1776), and" referred by Signoret op. cit., p. 319, to Gossyparia ulmi, Geoffr. (1764)’.— j. W. D. ’ 
