130 Journal New York Entomological Society. CVoi. xxx. 



NOTE ON LUTEVA CAROLINA H. S. (HEMIPTERA- 

 HETEROPTERA. FAM. REDUVIID^). 



By H. G. Barber, 



ROSELLE. N. J. 



I can find no evidence that the real Lutcva Carolina has been found 

 since its original description. The specimen referred to by me as 

 Ploiaria Carolina (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXIII, p. 502, 1904) 

 though placed by me in the wrong genus may have been correctly 

 named as such. Since Mr. Sleight's death his collection is not very 

 accessible, so that point will for the present ha.ve to remain in doubt. 



While collecting, in company with Mr. William T. Davis, about 

 Wilmington, North Carolina, in April, 1916, we found a number of 

 adults and nymphs of what I take to be Lutcva Carolina, under some 

 boards. In examining the literature concerning the genus Liiteva 

 I found not only considerable variation in the character of the fore 

 leg in the included species but also some disagreement among authors 

 on the interpretation of certain characters in the same species. 



In Liiteva Carolina the anterior tibia and tarsus taken together are 

 equal in length to the femor, the apex of the tarsus just attaining 

 the apex of the trochanter. The trochanter is armed with two 

 spine-like bristles of uneqyal length, similar in size and character 

 to those of the fore femora. The femora are armed with a double 

 series of spine-like bristles — an inner series of close set smaller ones 

 and an outer row of six or seven longer ones along the basal two 

 thirds. Alternating with these longer spines are two or three shorter 

 ones. The anterior tarsus is composed of three rigid, connate' seg- 

 ments and uni-unguiculate in both sexes. My specimens agree fairly 

 well with Herrick-Schaeffer's figures, but it should here be pointed 

 out that in fig. 936 the citations are incorrect — fig. c is the fore leg 

 of Emcsa and fig. g pertains to Lutcva. 



Dr. Bergroth (Psyche, XVIII, p. 19, 191 1) points out that Mr. 

 Banks has wrongly placed his Lutcva arizoncnsis and Pla-aria Caro- 

 lina and notes some of the characters of Lutcz'a. In my opinion 

 Lutcva arizoncnsis Banks should be placed in the genus Westcrman- 

 nia, apparently distinct from any other known Mexican species. 



