1875.] 255 



Eniscia, Thomson, Opusc. Ent., p. 299 (1870), Hymen. Scand., 

 i, 261, = Sciapteryx, Stephens, III, vii, 5G (1835). 



PJii/lIofoma fetiella, Zaddach, = Druida parviceps, Newman (1837), 

 = Tenth-edo nemorata, Fallen (1808). 



Mmphytus lepidus, Klug, = Sarpiphorus lepidus, Hartig (1837), 

 = Asticta lantlie, Newman (1838). 



Perineura viridis (Linn.), Thomson, = TentJiredo picta, Klug. 

 According to Thomson, T. viridis, Klug {nee Linn.),= T. viesomela, Jj. 



136, West G^raham Street, Glasgow : 

 February, 1875. 



Kofes on British JTemiptera. — I cannot let Messrs. Douglas and Scott's remarks 

 on my last month's paper pass unnoticed. I see that in four cases they give their 

 decision against mine; because Dr. Fieber has seen and named the specimens from 

 which they have described. Now, although I most fully acknowledge the value of 

 Dr. Fieber's most excellent works, yet there is no reason why he should not at times 

 have made mistakes, and the fact is that he has made many mistakes in the naming of 

 our British Hemiptera. Berytus commutalus, Stethotropis incana, and Litosoma 

 bicolor are three owned to by Messrs. Douglas and Scott in your January number, 

 the two latter of which I suggested to them myself, and they have previously cor- 

 rected several others. I do not put these forward for the sake of showing the imper- 

 fections of Dr. Fieber's work, but to prove that it is unreasonable to hold up Ills 

 opinion as decisive, as though he could not err. Of course I may bo wrong in my 

 views, but if so, I think that Messrs. Douglas and Scott should show me how I am 

 wrong, and therefore I cannot allow myself to bo silenced by a simple appeal to Dr. 

 Fieber's authority. I append a few notes to some of the species. 



Berytus Signoreti. — I have looked at Lethierry's description of pygmcexis, and 

 think mine may not impossibly be the same. I hope Messrs. Douglas and Scott's 

 will prove to be the true Signoreti, Fieb. 



Campglosteira verna, Fall. — I cannot see in either Hcrrich-SchalTer's or Fieber's 

 descriptions or figures any mention of a second row of meshes either on the prono- 

 tum or on tho margin. I suppose, as Mr. Douglas says " ours is the true verna, Fall.," 

 that he has seen the original type, and if so, I have no more to say. 



Phytocoris marmoratus, D. & S. — Will Mr. Scott say how this species difEers 

 from tilice 1 At tho end of his description (Ent. Mo. Mag., v, p. 263) he only says 

 that " its general darker appearance may serve to distinguish it from that insect." 

 If there arc any better characters than this, I hope he will point them out. 



(TinicephalusJ obsoletus, D. & S. — Wlien an author makes and characterizes a 

 division, and puts an insect into it which does not agree with tho characters of such 

 division, I do not think it is going too far to say that ho lias made a mistake, and I 

 am only sorry that Mr. Scott sliould wisli to abide by such an error. 



Psallus dilutus, D. & S., nee Fieb. — The printer may have erred in changing tho 

 one into two and the half into one-third, but if so, and Messrs. Douglas and Scott's 



