THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 17i» 



Mr. Distant's. It was necessary, incidentally, to point out that Mr. Distant 

 had endowed it with an extra (fifth !) segment to its labium (rostrum), a 

 condition which, if correct, certainly merited more than a passing mention; 

 as a matter of fact, every Hemipterist knows that the labium is always 

 composed of four segments, no more and no less, though sometimes one 

 or more may be difficult to see. 



In his reply (Can. Ent., XLI, 96), Mr. Distant ignores this essential 

 part of my observation, but impeaches my accuracy in a minor detail, 

 although I may remark that if a species is placed in Halobates, even with 

 a "?", and is said to be placed provisionally in it, then it is in it, at least 

 I do not see where else it can be said to be ! 



His description of 1879 is reproduced verbatim in his work of 1903 

 (Faun. Ind. Rhynch. II, 190), yet he did not then recognize immediately 

 the very well marked generic differences between Halobates and his new 

 species. 



Mr. Distant animadverts on the seriousness of my work, but what is 

 to be thought of the seriousness of a Hemipterist who mistakes the nymph 

 of a bug for the adult, and creates a new genus on it P 1 



I am, I trust, always sufficiently humble under the criticisms of such 

 Masters of Hemipterologv as Renter, Montandon or Horvath, the char- 

 acter of whose works gives them this privilege, while the capital errors of 

 Mr. Distant's work make it impossible to range him among these. For 

 example : Etimenotes is a Cimicid (Pentatomid), not (as Bergroth has 

 shown) an Aradid. Mr. Distant has pleaded that he merely followed 

 Bergroth's original disposition. 



Curupira is a Myodochid (Lygpeid), (and incidentally a synonym); it 

 does not even agree with the characters given by Mr. Distant himself for 

 the family in which he places it. 



Rulandus is a Reduviid, not a Nabid. It has not the faintest 

 resemblance nor is it structurally allied to any Nabid, except, of course, in 

 so far as it belongs to the same superfamily. 



The subfamily Machasrotinae "distinctly links the Membracidie with 

 the Cercopidpe " (1907 Faun. Ind. Rh., IV, 79), but the resemblance is 

 entirely superficial and not phylogenetic. One has only to examine the 

 form of the face and antennae in each to recognize the " seriousness " of 

 Mr. Distant's investigations. 



1. As for example, " Budceus " and c ' Criiobulus" among the Myodochida? 

 (Lygaeida*), as well as the numerous Ectrichodiinae corrected by Reuter ami 

 Bergroth. 



