70 INSECUTOR INSCITIiTE MENSTRUUS 



3. 48fi ; 4, AAfi ; 5, 43fi ; 6. 40/< ; 7, 42/* ; 8, 29,« ; total length of 

 antenna, 0.32 mm.; width of segment 3, 0.025 mm. 



Described from eight females and three males, collected by Mr. T. H. 

 Jones on " para grass " or " malojillo " {Panicum barhinode Trin.), at 

 Guanica, Porto Rico, March 9, 1912. "It may be of interest to add 

 that, accompanjdng this thrips between the leaf sheaths and stalks of the 

 grass, there occurred a scale insect which Mr. E. R. Sasscer, of the 

 Bureau of Entomology, U. S. Department of Agriculture, has identified 

 as Odonaspis sp." [Jones, in lift.] . Mr. Sasscer has subsequently informed 

 me that along with the aforementioned scale there occurred specimens of 

 Targionia sacchari (Ckll.). 



The coloration is somewhat suggestive of Zygothrips pallidas Hood, 

 described from Texas. It is not at all closely allied to that species, how- 

 ever, nor to any other described one. 



NOTES ON THE GENUS MIEZA WALKER, WITH 

 DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEW SPECIES FROM 

 COSTA RICA 



{Ltpidopttta, Yponomeutide) 

 By AUGUST BUSCK 



In Volume II, pp. 142-144, of the excellent "Contributions to the 

 Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America," by Drs. William 

 Barnes and J. H. McDunnough, is found an article on the hyponomeutid 

 genus Mieza Walker, which needs some correction. Such is offered 

 herewith from notes long in manuscript. 



The authors have misunderstood the facts about the generic names 

 Eustixia and Eustixis Hiibner, when they surmise that the latter name 

 is dropped because " not sufficiently characterized." Very few of Hiib- 

 ner's genera are sufficiently characterized from our present point of view, 

 but they are not and cannot be dropped on that account. The authors 

 state that otherwise the generic name Mieza Walker would fall as a syn- 

 onym as before Eustixis Hiibner, " which is sufficiently distinct from 

 Eustixia to warrant its retention." 



The facts are that the two ncimes Eustixia and Eustixis were clearly 

 intended by Hiibner for but one genus and the different final letter is 

 either a mere lapsus or an intended improvement in spelling. This is evi- 



