In the year 1889, Mr. Henry Tryon, Assistant Curator of the Queensland, Australia, Museum, in a report on the insect and fungus pests, published as report No. 1, by the Department of Agriculture of Queensland, pp. 89-91 describes a species of scale insect found on the peach, as the White Scale, Diaspis amygdali (fig 7). and reported its occurrence both at Brisbane, Queesland, and Sydney, New South Wales. Although described as the White Scale, the author continually refers to it as the peach scale, in his paper, and the latter name has been adopted in America for the species. Of its habits Mr. Tryon states that: “At first its presence is betrayed by small white spots or patches on the bark of the smaller branches; but as the insect increases these soon become in many places confluent, and the individual scales overlap one another, or are contorted by being squeezed together closely, or even appear to lie one over the other, and where the male scale insects crowd together these spots present a more finely chaffy appearance. As it will occur quite up to the tips of the branches, the complete destruction of any tree subjected to the attack of the peach scale, and owing to it, is only a matter of time. When already in patches on the branchlets prior to the formation of the leaves and fruit, in early spring, it does not hinder their formation; the leaves are green as usual, the fruit sets, but is soon retarted in its growth and shrivels up”. Writing me under date of November 7th 1897, however, Mr. Tryon has this to say of its present condition in Queensland: “This Coccid is far from being generally distributed in Queensland, and nowhere have I observed it to act very prejudicially to the trees that it attacks.

March 14th, 1898.—During the last two or three weeks, I have received inquiries from Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, and Canada, regarding the structural external character of the San José scale (Aspidiotus perniciosus), Cherry scale (A. Forbesi), and Putnam's scale (A. ancylus). I present, therefore, a few notes on these species, which I hope may be of some use to my fellow workers.

I have read with much interest a couple of papers by Mr. Hanham, of Winnipeg, on the capturing of insects “at light.” I had adopted this method in the Old Country with much success, and last season in this district, near the head of Lake Manitoba, I employed the same means and secured a goodly number of specimens. There is no doubt that light is most efficacious in securing to the one who makes use of it many insects that would otherwise be only rarely met with, but while engaged in thus making cautpres one cannot help being struck–a point to which Mr. Hanham alludes–with the effect light has upon many of the Lepidoptera, or rather with the different effects it has upon different individuals.

In the Canadian Entomologist, Vol XXVII. page 33 (1895), Professor T. D. A. Cockerell stated that Dr. James Fletcher and just sent him a species of Chionaspis from Charlottetown, Prince Elward Island — very abundant on the bark of Betula papyrifera – and that in comparing it with Prof. Costomck's description of C. Lintneri he believed it to be that species. Following the description of the Prince Edward Island specimens, Prof. Cockerell drew attention to a few probable points of difference between it and Prof. Comstock's description, but as he could find no positive differences he did not separate the form on Betula, inferring that the discrepancy was due either to variation in his specimens or the incompleteness of Prof. Comstock's description. I have since received specimens of the form on Betula papyrifera from Prof. Comstock and Dr. J. A. Lintner, and latter gentleman has also lent me Prof. Comstock's co-types of C. Lintneri. On comparing the two I was at aonce convinced that they were distinct, and upon giving Prof. Cockerell my reasons for thinking that the two insects could not be identical, he advised me to separate the form on Betula.

Melanoplus abortivus, new species.—Size rather small, especially the male. Female nearly as large as M. femur-rubrum, but proportionately much stouter.

Frontal costa nearly reaching the clypeus, subequal, though sometimes a little contracted toward the vertex, plane except a slight depression at the ocellus, or in the male generally slightly sulcate from just above the ocellus, rather thinly punctate. Vertex witht the margins slightly elevated, gently expanding in front of the eyes for a distance about equal to or somewhat less than that between the eyes in the female, rather greater in the male.

Brachynemurus Coquilletti, new species.

Male.—Length, 33 mm.; expanse of wings, 44 mm.; greatest width of anterior wing, 5.6 mm.; length of antenna, 6 mm.; luteous, marked with dark fuscous; clothed with white hairs, thickly so on abdomen; apical segments of abdomen with some black hairs among the white ones.

Face flat, luteous, bordered above by a pitchy-black band separating the antennae and narrowly bordering them in front and on the outer side; a longitudinal median black line extends from this band almost to the clypeus. Circum-ocular area luteous, except along the anterior portion of the vertex, where it is fuscous, and on the margin next the eye, opposite the middle of anterior joint of maxillary palpiger, where there is a fuscous spot. Clypeus rather short, luteous, on either side anteriorly an impressed spot; above, a few black bristles. Labrum transverse, luteous; rounded laterally and narrowed anteriorly, nearly straight in front, where it is sparsely clothed with light-coloured hairs. Mandibles piceous, black at tips.

The other day a distinguished artist friend of mine called upon me with a small bottle containing some whiskey, which by its odour I judged was good, when he first took it from his flask, and in it was what he denominated a “bug.” He told me that he had experienced “one of the most wonderful adventures of his life” in connection with the specimen he put before me, and went on to tell me that during the past summer, while sketching in the mountains, he had discovered one evening, when undressing, a small, dark swelling on his breast. He thought it to be a little abnormal growth on the skin and paid no attention to it. From time to time he noticed it afterwards, when retiring, and found to his considerable alarm that it was gradually growing larger, and evil thoughts of cancer, tumors, and what not, began to float through his mind. Finally, after some two weeks had passed, one evening, as he expressed it, “while fooling with the darned thing it came off” He laid it down on the dressing-case before him and was presently astounded to see it slowly crawling away from the spot. Then a small bottle was sought out, the whiskey flask was brought into requisition, and the “bug” was safely bottled, to be referred to me for an explanation. This proved not difficult to give. The specimen was a well-developed example of Ixodes albipictus, Packard. We had a hearty laugh together, and my friend assured me that he “would know better the next time, and not let such creatures establish such a lengthy abode upon his person.” His adventure recalled to me a letter which I have long had in my possession, intending to publish it, as it is very well written, and adds a touch of humour to the subject. The specimen referred to in the letter is in my collection, and proves to be an example of Ixodes bovis, a very common plague in the south-western part fo this country.

As the result of last year's work I have an addition to make to the list of Manitoba Diurni, which appeared in this magazine about two years ago. On July 3rd, when driving across an outlying portion of my farm, in a flowery glade amongst some scrub I saw an anusual looking “fritillary” hovering over and settling together with Argynnis Lais upon some lillies in bloom. On netting it I found it to be a “green wing,” which has been determined by my friend, Dr. Fletcher, to be A. Edwardsii, In a short time I secured three or four more examples of this Western species from the same place. On the 7th July I found it again in a similar locality, about a mile south of where I had originally seen it, and secured some more specimens, all of which, except perhaps a couple whose wings were slightly chipped, were in good condition. I went out again on the 10th, but though Lais and Cybele were on the wing, I did not see Edwardsii. A correspondent at Brandon (in this Province), Mr. Boger, writes me that he also took one or two “green wings” this summer; Brandon being 60 or 70 miles to the N. W. of me. He was, when writing, under the impression that his was A. Nevadensis. It would be a very curious fact if both species (?) visited Manitoba at the same time, and it would look very much as though they were only varieties of one species. I have just noticed among my series one specimen that varies slightly from the majority, and is somewhat like the description given of A. Nevadensis…Colias Caesonia, did not again present itseif, though I saw in 1896 at least half a dozen specimens besides the two I caught.

A year ago last autumn, while rambling about the fields, we took especial notice of the galls upon the golden-rod. We saw that there were two kinds, the elongated and the round. We knew that from the former came a tiny moth, well-known to us, and from the latter a fly with which we were not familiar, or, if familiar, not known to come from this gall. The elongated galls were all empty, but the round ones we found upon examination contained each a small white grub. We gathered a quantity of the galls and placed them in a jelly glass on the writing table where they would be constantly before us for observation.

Cisthene striata, nov. sp.—Antennae and palpi black. Head, pro-thorax and patagia creamy, the prothorax of a deeper shade. Thorax above dull gray. Abdomen rose coloured above and laterally, gray ventrally, Legs brorwnish-gray.

Prof. cockerell's treatment of these genera is likely to create an erroneous impression, which should be corrected wherever his statements are made. In Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., XXIV., 150, he says : “It is perfectly evident that the so-called species of Panurgus of North America are not all of the same genus.” In the Dec. Can. Ent., p. 287, he says : “The result is extremely interesting, and seems to show that we have for many years been placing bees in genera to which they by no means belong.”

The Chalcidid subfamily Trichogrammatinae is composed entirely of species parasitic in the eggs of other insects. A synopsis of the genera has recently been published by Dr.Chr. Aurivillius in “Entomologisk Tidskrift,” for 1897, pp.249–256, apropos to the establishment of a new genus (Oophthora) for a species which he has reared in Sweden from the eggs of Semblidis lutariae. In this synopsis of the genera Dr. Aurivillius makes Lathromeris, Förster (Hymenopt. Stud., 1856, 2, pp. 87–89) a synonym of Chaetostricha, Haliday (An. and Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 2, Vol. 7, 1851, p.212).