102 tMay. 



I must plead guilty to having failed to recognise Falsocossyplms 

 Pic as the genus of the insect I was studying, and certainly should not 

 consider the position suggested as a likely place to look for it. 



It now appears that a third name has been given to the same insect, 

 for Dr. K. M. Heller has fully described and figured it in the " Tijdschrift 

 voor Entomologie," ix, 1917, pp. 376-381, pi. 4, under the name of 

 Blcdticephaliis adeloto'pus. That I had not seen this paper before pub- 

 lishing my own is unfortunate but could not be helped, as the periodical 

 in question was only received here some months after my paper had 

 appeared. 



Here we find yet other views as to its systematic position, for 

 Dr. Heller considers his genus to be an aberrant branch of the family 

 Melnndryidae. Undoubtedly its superficial resemblance to Eustrojylius, 

 with which Heller compares it, is considerable, though he himself points 

 out certain important structural differences, e. g., the closed anterior 

 coxal cavities, the confluence of the gular svitures, the lack of pleural 

 sutures of the pro- and mesothorax, the wing-neumtion, etc. ; these, 

 however, the Grerman author does not consider of sufficient weight 

 positively to exclude the genus from the Melandryidae. 



Further consideration of this point, particularly in the light of 

 Dr. Heller's arguments, has confirmed me in the opinion expi-essed in 

 the above-mentioned paper. I then placed the genus in the subfamily 

 Rhysopaussinae, allying it to Stemmoderus Spin, and through this to 

 Gonocnemis Thorns. The close relationship of Falsocossyphus (of the 

 three names given to the genus, this unfortunately chosen appellation 

 has priority) to Stewmoderiis is, I think, certain ; the structure of the 

 mouth-parts and gular sutvires, also of the antennae, is practically 

 identical ; that of the anterior coxal cavities is very similar, though in 

 Fahocossyphits the prosternal process separating them is strongly pro- 

 duced ventrally and backwards : in Stemmoderus it is not at all produced ; 

 in Eustroplius the side-pieces fail by a long way to meet the median 

 process so that the cavities remain open behind. The most important 

 differences are in the structure of the legs and of the face, but in 

 Falsocossyphus these are highly modified for defensive purposes. 



The affinities of Stemmoderus and Gonocnemis are not so evident, 

 but in my opinion quite demonstrable. A striking feature is the wing- 

 sti-ucture, which is practically identical. This in both genera differs 

 from that of Falsocossyplms in the presence (imperfectl}^ developed in 

 Stemmodertts) of a transverse nerve connecting vii (Cu^) with the closed 

 cell of ix (A, and AJ, but that of all three genera agrees in the very 



