THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 387 



Acanthia in the Fabrician sense as indicated above we find the 

 largest genus in the family without a name and I therefore propose 

 to call it Saldula. As a substitute for Acanthia of Reuter (Of. 

 Finska Vet. Soc. Forh., Afd. A, No. 12, p. 14, 1912) it takes the 

 same type, saltatoria Linn. Nineteen North American species 

 belong to this genus. 



Genus Dictyophara Germ. — Melichar in his recent mono- 

 graph on this subfamily places our American species in Stal's genus 

 Nersia, which he considers as distinct. Our species are, however, 

 entirely congeneric with Dictyophara europcea Linn, and must 

 be retained in this genus. 



Genus Ticida Uhler. — I now find that my Loxophora trans- 

 versa is a synonym of Ticida cingulata Uhler and my genus therefore 

 becomes a synonym of Ticida. I was mislead by Uhler's placing 

 his genus in the Issidce. 



Genus Otiocerus Kirby. — I do not accept Kirkaldy's state- 

 ment that Vol. XIII of the Trans, of the Linnean Society was 

 published in 1822. The first pages containing Kirby's paper 

 undoubtedly appeared in 1819 or very early in 1820. Germar 

 accepted Kirby's name as the earlier and we must do the same. 



Genus Cicada Linn — When publishing my note on this genus 

 in 1912 I did not realize that it was Lamarck's intention to name 

 types in this work of 1801, and finding Cicada without a valid type, 

 named tibicen as such type. There is no doubt, however, but we 

 must accept orni Linn as type of Cicada as named by Lamarck, 

 thus making the genus equivalent to Tettigia of Kolenati. There 

 is an additional reason for our doing this, in the fact that Linneus 

 named this section of his genus Manniferce from the "manna" 

 produced by this insect, which is perhaps the most common Euro- 

 pean Cicada. This is in accord with the Linnean method of re- 

 stricting his genera to the best known or officinal species. What 

 then shall we do with genus Cicada of Stal and other writers? 

 Latreille in 1825 establishes genus Tibicen for plebeja Scop., but 

 without description. The question is: Was Tibicen properly 

 established by the simple naming of a well-known species in 1825, 

 or must it be held over until 1829, when one distinguishing character 

 (of no value) was given and four species (belonging to three genera) 



