104 HEMIPTERA-HETEROPTERA. 
Stal considered these sexes distinct species, on account of the wider body and tuber- 
culated posterior femora of the female; this sexual difference, however, occurs also in 
the next species here enumerated (Hirilcus alternatus), of which I have examined a 
very large series. As regards the small yellow fascia on the posterior tibie of the 
female, I detected this also, though more obscurely, in a male specimen contained in the 
British Museum. 
HIRILCUS. 
Hirilcus, Stal, Stett. ent. Zeit. xxiii. p. 274 (1862) ; Ofv. Vet.-Ak. Férh. 1867, p. 536; Hem. Fabr. 
i, p. 42 (1862). 
Allied to the preceding genus; but the head is not tuberculated beneath, nor is the 
mesosternum prominently elevated, but more or less convex. The posterior tibie are 
moderately dilated. 
In addition to the species here included, three others are recorded from Brazil. 
1. Hirilcus alternatus. (Tab. X. fige. 93,109.) 
Meropachus alternatus, Dall. List Hem. ii. p. 420. 3}. 
Meropachys alternatus, Stal, En. Hem. i. p. 125. 3. 
Hab. Mexico! (coll. Sign.); Guatemaua, Teleman, Panzos, Purula, La Tinta, and 
Chacoj (Champion). 
This is a variable species, in the emarginate or convex apex of the scutellum, in the 
colour of the apex of the last joint of the antenne, and in the colour and markings of 
the connexivum. In some specimens there is a distinct black mark on each side of the 
scutellum, about the middle, as described by Dallas; in others this is wanting. These 
differences are not local; for the two specimens (male and female) figured are both from 
Chacoj, and, together, exhibit the maximum of variation; neither can these colour- 
differences be considered sexual. The strongly granulated posterior femora in the 
female, with the shorter and more robust body, is similar to what is observed in the 
same sex of the last genus. 
Walker, Cat. Het. iv. p. 69, has blundered here with almost disastrous consequences. 
He has added six specimens, 6-g, of Flavius lineaticornis to the one specimen of this 
species; and as he has placed them first in the collection, they would naturally mislead 
any one who consulted Dallas’s type without also referring to the description. I was 
thus deceived myself ; and this may be taken as an example of the reason why, in con- 
sulting and verifying the species described by Walker, I have considered it worse than 
useless in most instances to accept his determination of other authors’ species, or accept 
the habitats of the same. 
LYCAMBES. 
Lycambes, Stal, Rio Jan. Hem. ii. p. 58 (1862); Ofv. Vet.-Ak. Férh. 1867, p. 537. 
Pachymeria, Laporte, Ess. Hém. p. 28 (1882). . 
