24 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS [Jan., 'l2 



antenna and orificia and, above all, the male genital segment. 

 The transitions between species with five-jointed and four- 

 jointed antennae are quite gradual. In some species the suture 

 between the second and third joints is fairly distinct, in others 

 it is hardly perceptible, sometimes disappearing only on the 

 inner side of the joint or vanishing altogether as in A. her- 

 mannsburgi. In no species I have seen a quite normal articu- 

 lation with free mobility between these segments. We find a 

 quite analogous structure of the antennae in the allied genera 

 Eumecopus Dall. and Poecilometis Ball. In both these genera 

 there are species with five-jointed and with four-jointed an- 

 tennse, owing to the second and third joints being either more 

 or less distinctly separated or fused together. Kirkaldy (Cat. 

 Hem. I, p. 189) founded the "subgenus, if not genus" Eurono- 

 tias on the species of Poecilometis with five-jointed antennae. 

 Why he did not make the same subdivision in the genus Eume- 

 copus is hard to understand. Enronotias is quite unnatural 

 and untenable even as a subgenus, as both in Poecilometis and 

 Enmecopus some species with four-jointed antennae are much 

 more closely allied to certain species with five- jointed antennae 

 than to each other. 



Theseus parvulus Westw. 



In his revision of the Pentatomidae described by Westwood 

 in the "Hope Catalogue," Distant places Halys parvula Westw. 

 in the genus Spudaeus Dall., but from the figure he gives of 

 the type it is clear that it belongs to Theseus Stal. 



Kirkaldy proposed the new name Austromalaya for Spu- 

 daeus, which is said to be preoccupied by Gistl. From what I 

 have gathered about that monstrous literary product "Natur- 

 geschichte des Thierreichs fur hohere Schulen bearbeitet von 

 J. Gistl" few of his very numerous new names are properly 

 founded. They seem to be nomina nuda massed together in 

 the 1 6 pages forming the introduction to the book and mostl\ 

 proposed quite arbitrarily without real grounds for old. well- 

 known genera. I believe that most of these names have been 

 undeservedly included in Waterhouse's "Index zoologicus." 



