THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 357 



Genera Insectorum, Fascicule 72. — Innumerable errors mar the 

 pages of this Fascicule. While mostly of minor importance, these 

 mistakes are, nevertheless, decidedly objectionable. Many of them would 

 have been eliminated had it been possible to secure a second proof of the 

 text. This, however, the publisher refused to send, in spite of a very 

 urgent request from the writer to do so. The most serious error noted is 

 on p. 25, 6 lines from the top, where Psorodojiotus radiata should read 

 Psorodo7iotus pancici. — A. N. Caudell. 



SOME REMARKS ON THE PHYLOGENY OF THE 

 HEMIPTERA-HETEROPTERA. 



BY G. W. KIRKALDY, HONOLULU, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 



The classification of the Heteroptera, as usually adopted by the 

 Systematists of to-day, seems to be somewhat far from representing the real 

 phylogeny of the suborder. Schiodte's illuminating paper of 1869 has 

 been little followed by the majority of workers, who seem to have mis- 

 apprehended some of the salient points.* The order of families adopted 

 by Lethierry and Severin, that put forward by Osborn, and that used lately 



by Distant, which is practically a copy of Saunders's, are all apparently 

 unnatural. 



Schiodte's divisions are based on the method of articulation of the 

 hind cox?e, and appear to me to be natural, sharply limited, and probably 

 very ancient. Which of the two groups is the more generalized, however, 

 is not easv to decide. 



The following brief notes are intended to stir up some thought on the 

 subject. I am obliged to take as granted, or very probable, certain 

 unproved points, as this is simply a summary, but later on I hope to treat 

 the subject in detail. 



My conception of a typical, rather primitive, Heteropteron, say of 

 late Carboniferous time, is of an insect not very distinct, perhaps, from a 

 modern Cimicine (Asopine), such as Cimex {Picromerus) bidens. 



*Sharp, in reproducing Schiodte's table, places the "Capsid^e" in the Trocha- 

 lopoda. No wonder that Sharp finds that "Schiodte's characters do not divide 

 his two divisions at all sharply ! " 

 October, 1908 



