( 172 ) 



ont this mistake ia 10O4, describing a comb-bearing species as Malacop.v/l/a 

 agenoris iind a combless species as anilrodi, adding that these species were 

 presnmablN' tlie same as Bakei''s. We had some donbts about androcli being 

 distinct from Weyenbergli's qromtcntrh ; bnt as we conid not be certain from 

 tlie description whetlier onr insect agreed with grossirentris or not, we thought 

 it wiser to consider it new rather than to describe it as grosxivciitris, and thns 

 perhaps render the synonymy of the latter more involved. On now comjiariug 

 Weyenbergh's specimens with ours, we find that there is no difference whatever 

 between grossivcntris and aiidrocU. 



The year before we {)ublished the descriptions of M. agenoris and androcli 

 {= yrossiventriis) another MalacopsijUa had been described by Wahlgren as 

 Megapyslla incrmia. ^\'e have a ])air of this inermis, cotypes, received from 

 the Stockholm Musenm. Though the author described the head of inermis as 

 not being armed with a frontal tubercle, we find that the tubercle is present. 

 We fail to detect any differences between inermis and grossirentris (= androcli). 

 In a recent paper on American SipLonaptera, Baker enters into the question 

 of the specific distinctness of agenoris, grossirentris, inermis, and androcli. He 

 agrees with us that the comb-bearing agenoris stands quite apart, but we do not 

 understand his statement that what he originally called the male of gro.ssircniris 

 "turns out to be agenoris"; for in 1898, and again in 1904, it was said to be 

 the female which had a prothoracic comb. We gather from the remark " a projier 

 male was found for \\^it female previously called gros.'iiventris'" that the material 

 referred to as grossivcntris by Baker in 1808 and 1904 consisted of both sexes 

 of two species. The non-combed species Baker accepts in 1905 to be the true 

 grossivcntris. The assumption appears to be correct according to Weyenbergh's 

 specimens before us. He is further right in considering inermis Wahlgren to 

 be identical with grossirentris. Bnt Baker is in error when treating androcli as 

 distinct from grossirentris. His opinion is based on two points : the rostrum of 

 androcli is said by us to reach almost to the apex of the forecoxa, which is not 

 the case in gro.ssivcntris. Now, we were misled to make that statement by a 

 mounted /ewff/c in which the labial palpi reacli, in consequence of pressure, beyond 

 the apical third of the forecoxa. The rostrum of androcli is not longer than that 

 ot g?-ossiventris. The second distinguishing character on which Baker relies refers 

 to the genitalia. The finger of grossirentris is said by Baker to be obliquely 

 truncate, while that of androcli, according to our fignre, " evenly narrows to a 

 rounded tip," Baker adding that the figure given by AVahlgren exactly " represents 



this condition of grossirentris.'" Our figure and 

 that of Wahlgren are indeed very different, but 

 the finger in tlie specimens of inermis, androcli, 

 and grossivcntris is nevertheless the same. We 

 find our fignre quite correct, except that the finger 

 is a trifle too long. Wahlgren and Baker did not 

 see the jjroper outline of the finger. What they 

 considered to be the ventral outline of the finger 

 does not belong to the finger. We give here 

 a diagram taken from a eotyj)e of inermis. Apart from some detail not shown 

 in our previous figure, it will be observed on comparison that there is no 

 difference. 



In June 19uu a fifth specific name for a MalucojjS>/lla was published by 



