Hudson. — On New Zealand Cicadidae. 163 



these confusing corrections and alterations would have been 

 obviated. I feel it necessary to make some little explanation 

 in connection with this matter, as it would appear from Mr. 

 Distant's remarks (" Annals and Magazine of Natural History," 

 April, 1892, pages 313 and 326) that I have been guilty of 

 "perfunctory and hasty work" in describing species as new 

 which were already known. As a matter of fact, it is impos- 

 sible for collectors in New Zealand to identify their captures 

 amongst the lesser-known orders of insects except by the aid 

 of European authorities, and in this instance I did not describe 

 these Cicadidce until I had made every effort to obtain correct 

 information on the subject. Some years ago a well-known 

 New Zealand naturalist advised me to describe anything I did 

 not know as " new," leaving the European authors to make 

 the necessary corrections in the synonymy which would natu- 

 rally result. It is almost needless to say that I have not fol- 

 lowed this advice, but have in all cases submitted the specimens 

 to competent authorities, as I consider that the creation of 

 synonyms in any branch of natural history is most unde- 

 sirable. 



The following are the alterations above referred to : — 

 (From " Annals and Magazine of Natural History," 1892, pp. 326, 327.) 

 Melampsalta muta, Fabr. 



Cicada muta, Huds. (part). Trans. N.Z. Inst., xxiii., 

 p. 51 (1890). 



Cicada aprilina, Huds. Ibid., p. 53 (1890). 



Melampsalta angusta, Walker. 

 Cicada muta, Huds. (part). Trans. N.Z. Inst., xxiii., 

 p. 51 (1890). 



Melampsalta scutellaris, Walker. 

 Cicada tristis, Huds., I.e., p. 52. 



Melampsalta iolanthe, Huds. 

 Cicada iolanthe, Huds., I.e., p. 53. 



Melampsalta nervosa, Walk. 



Cicada cassiope, Huds., I.e., p. 54. 



I do not for a moment question the accuracy of the above 

 conclusions, except in the case of Cicada aprilina, Huds., 

 which I firmly believe to be a good species. I have taken at 

 least twenty specimens of this insect, and amongst all these 

 I have not found one with the slightest tendency to vary in 

 the direction of any of the other species, or, in fact, in any 

 direction whatsoever. It is evidently, then, a " constant 

 variety," and, if constancy of characters does not denote a 

 species, I fear that we should find considerable difficulty in 

 discriminating between " species " and " varieties " anywhere. 



