in this group, he did not care to go further in the matter and make a more definite statement. In the meantime, I had gone on studying the species, collecting specimens from a large number of plants, preparing and examining them in all the stages that could be procured. Green (1929) had already reported the species as occurring on grape vines from Whangarei, and specimens were collected on grape vines from two different places in Motueka. These, on examination, appeared to show two different varieties, neither of which agreed with specimens collected on Wistaria at Ngatea, in the North Island. This appeared to be undoubted evidence of more than one variety of the species in this country, and it became difficult to know which of them was likely to be the species indicated by Fabricius. Green (1929) had simply mentioned the fact that the species was present in New Zealand, and in 1930 had merely stated that both he and Newstead were mistaken in the identification of L. persicae in England. It was not until Marchal's concise work on the subject became available later on that it was possible to identify what I now believe to be typical specimens of L. persicae. Though Marchal evidently made a very close study of this species, he makes no mention of any variation. This may be accounted for by the fact that he did not always make a close microscopic examination of the specimens collected, but sometimes relied on their appearance in the natural state. As the insects under these conditions vary only slightly in colour, he may have overlooked differences. Given the fact that Marchal's description of L. persicae was correct, there was little doubt that some of those collected on grape vines were typical specimens (and the same may be said of certain specimens collected from plum, honeysuckle, and gooseberry), but that other specimens collected from broom, Pittosporum, Wistaria, and other plants of grape-vine and plum in Motueka were a variation from the typical species. The specimens collected on Wistaria at Ngatea were distinct again from either of the others above mentioned. The fact became evident after the examination of a large number of specimens taken from different kinds of plants, that they could not possibly be what is called “host variations,” and the matter became still more complicated later on when young insects were examined as they became available, for not the slightest difference could be distinguished between them. There is no doubt about the species being exotic and, as rather a long list of synonyms is attached to the specific name, there will always remain a probability of any variety having been already described under one or other of the many names attached to the species in the past. The possibility, however, of any such proof being given is very remote. In the early days of their study, the description of these insects was almost wholly confined to their appearance in the natural state, when colour, size, shape, habitat, together with a very short description of the antennae, was thought to be quite sufficient. The usual method of preparation in those days was that of clearing in oil, and as staining was out of the question, many of the finer characters—such as minute pores and spines— would be practically invisible. This makes it extremely doubtful that even if the original specimens were examined, their identity with those