81 
of the usual form; second fork of the third vein rather nearer to the 
apex than to the third vein; thin, transparent, veins slender; the costal 
and sub-costal veins not parallel, the sub-costal rather robust, and 
slightly curving inwards about midway between the base and stigma. 
Stigma quite opaque, medium size, rather narrow, and acutely pointed 
at each end. Abdomen short, broad, and with broad margis. (The 
specimens are alcoholic, and this may haye something to do with the 
appearance.) 
Front of the head and base of the antennae black; prothorax pale; 
disc of the mesothorax dark brown or black; the hinder part of the 
abdomen with two or three transverse dark brown stripes; veins of 
the wings and stigma brown; honey-tubes pale brown. 
Wingless specimens. —As compared with the winged, large and 
elongate; honey-tubes very long and slender, not enlarged in the mid¬ 
dle; reaching to the tip of the tail; tail very long, equal to one-fourth 
the length of the body exclusive of the tail. Form of the body 
elongate oval. Front of the head appears to be deeply grooved, re¬ 
sembling very much a Siphonophorcc and so different from the winged 
individuals as to cause one to doubt the two belonging to the same 
species. 
Length of body of winged .08 inch; wingless to tip of the abdomen 
.09, to tip of the tail .12 inch. 
Dr. Bundy, from whom the specimens were obtained, furnishes the 
following note in reference to them: 
On Tulipa gesneriana. Female. —Abdomen, below pale uniform pea- 
green; above darker sea-green; darker transverse lines on the posterior half; 
honey-tubes black; a row of black spots on the sides; head and thorax dark, 
blackish green, with a suggestion of orange; prothorax pale below; antennaa 
and eyes black; legs generally dark, paler on the basal half of the 
femora. Wings dusky, with a steel-blue reflection on the outer half; 
basal half with a coppery reflection; a long, dull stripe on the mar¬ 
gin of the forewings. 
The dull stripe on the forewings is doubtless the broad sub-costal 
vein. 
The only Aphis hitherto described from the tulip, of which I can 
find any notice, is A. tulipce. Fonscol. France. The description is 
found in Ann. Soc. Fnt. Fr. x. 167, which is inaccessible to me at 
present. It is possible, therefore the two may be identical, if so my 
specific name will remain good, and I think the generic position cor¬ 
rect, but the name of the original describer will have to be attached 
as author. 
It approaches Myzus in some respects. 
Rhopalosiphum berberidis? Kalt. 
Syn. Aphis berberidis . Fitch. 
I have considerable doubts of the identity of Dr. Fitch’s species 
with Kaltenbach’s, but concluded to consider them as one, although I 
have seen no specimens. 
—6 
