﻿27 



Stenocotis (*). 

 I. dimorpha sp. nov. 



Stenocotis plaiiiuscula Kirkaldy 1906 Bull. H. S. P. A. Ent. 

 I, PI. XXV, figs. 4 and 8 (=male, net of Stal.). 



Male. Whitish, tessellated with pale ferruginous and blackish- 

 brown; frons pale with a longitudinal blackish median stripe 

 widening out sometimes apically, sometimes basally. Under- 

 side and legs mostly black (hind tibiae sometimes brownish). 

 Genital segments partly dark, partly pale. Tegmina hyaline, 

 with the veins blackish and white alternately; the basal fourth 

 blackish, closely spotted with testaceous and with some larger 

 white markings; there is also a transverse dark band just apical 

 of the middle. The apical veins are not reticulate. 



Female. Pinkish-brown and yellowish-brown tessellated, or 

 brownish and dark fuscous tessellated. Underside yellowish testa- 

 ceous, nearly unicolorous. Tegmina nearly unicolorous (with- 

 in range of ferruginous and yellowish) with semireticulate 

 apical part. Ultimate sternite produced medianly, the produced 

 part rounded posteriorly. Ovipositor much lono'er than the 

 long pygophor which indeed extends distinctly beyond apex of 

 tegmina. 



Length 15 (male) ; 22-3 mill, (female). 



Hab. Queensland, Bundaberg (Nov.) As it is just possible 

 that these sexes do not belciiig to the same species, the male is 

 selected as type. 



N. B. In my former bulletin, p. 476, in the explanation of 

 PI. XXV, f. 4, for "female" read "male." 



2. reticulata sp. nov. 



Stenocotis phtninscnla Kirkaldy. 1. c. figs. 3, 6 and 7 (=fe- 

 male). 



Females: like those of 6^. dimorpJia, but with a slender longi- 

 tudinal median blackish line on vertex; tegmina more reticu- 



* Since this was in proof, I have roceived tlie Citli part of tlie A. S. E. Belg. LI (July 

 :!. 1907) containing Distant's " Contrilnitions to a KiKiwieiigc of the Ledrinae" (pp. 185- 

 97.) He disputes my citation of N. n7f((^( (=d(7>/'('N.s(( Walker) and proffers instead S. 

 plnnluscula. I cannot accept this. In 1.Ho4 Stal founded Steixicntix for 2 species, plani- 

 liscula and suhiHtt'''Ut. No type was mentioned and no comparison was made between 

 the species. In ISofi Stal redescribed the genus and redescribed suhrittata, figuring it. 

 I hold that this fixes the type as KiiJivittdtic if not, ^itlivittato is then the type, because 

 I was the next author to deal with the genus and lixed it. The argument put forward 

 by Distant, that plnnhiscnJa is the type because the first species mentioned by Stal, is 

 worthless and inconsistent with Distant's own method in other cases. I was aware 

 that Stal had cited xnitrHtiita as a synomym of riep»"e.«sa and quoted it as such on the 

 next page, overlooked Ijy Distant. 



