i8:5.j 233 



maturity of the specimens, and as there appears to bo no dilTerenec in the compara- 

 tive tliickness of the antennas in tlie specimens before me, I ain inclined to think 

 that the nigrina and macrophthalma of Messrs. Douglas and Scott may be varieties 

 of the same species. 



I see that Messrs. Douglas and Scott have corrected several errors in the synonymy, 

 &c., of our Hemi^tera, but I think the following corrections still want making. 



2. Q-EOTOMiTs PTJNCTTJLATrrs, Costa. 



^thus IcBvis, D. and S. 

 For this synonjnny I have to thank Dr. Puton, to whom I sent specimens. 



3. Beetttjs, n. sp. ? 



B. Signoreti, D. and S., nee Fieb. 



Fieber places Signoreti in the division " membrane wide, nearly a half wider 

 " than corium," which also includes montivagus. Now, in our species the membrane 

 is not so wide as this, and is no wider than that of cognatus, which Fieber puts in 

 the next division. The markings of the membrane on ours are also much less dis- 

 tinct than Fieber's description would suggest. This latter character, of course, may 

 be variable. I have, however, two specimens from M. Meyer-Diir sent to me as 

 Signoreti, Fieb., whicli agi'ee exactly with Fieber's characters, and are quite distinct 

 from our British form, being similar in shape to montivagus, with the same largely 

 rounded membrane, but easily distinguishable from it by several characters. These, 

 I .believe, to represent the true Signoreti, Fieb., and if I am correct, our British 

 species will require a new name. 



4. Nysifs beunneus, Fieb. 



N. Scotti, E. Saund., E. M. M., vi, 1. 



While correcting what I believe to be other people's mistakes, I am glad to have 

 an opportunity of correcting one of my own. I am indebted to Dr. Puton for the 

 above synonymy. I have also recently received a specimen of Nysius helveticus from 

 M. Frey-Gessncr, of Geneva, the characters of wLicli appear identical witli those of 

 the present species, and unless I am mistaken, A. obsoletus, Fieb., must be a very nearly 

 allied species, if distinct. 



5. Campylostik.v brachtcera, Fieb. 



C. verna, D. and S., nee Fall., nee Fieb. 



Fieber describes and figures verna with only one row of meshes on each side of 

 the thorax. Messrs. Douglas and Scott describe verna as having two rows of meshes 

 in front and one behind, a character also of hrachgcera ; from this I suspect that 

 their verna is only the developed form of hrachycera; whereas, verna, Fall., 

 Fieb., is a distinct species. 



C. Phytocoeis tilije. 



P. mamioratus, D. and S. 

 I must hero declare my conriction that marmoratun, D. and S., is only a dark 

 variety of tilicB, although I think Mr. Scott still believes them to be distinct. lean 

 perceive no structural difference whereby to distinguish them ; nor can I see any 

 difference in the position or arrangement of the markings. Tilice is a very variable 

 species ; and I have a series which I feel sure would prove to any one that marmo- 

 atus is only one of its extreme varieties. 



