80 l>P ri1 ' 



ON SOME BRITISH ROMOPTERA HITHERTO UNDESCRIBED OK 



UNRECORDED. 



BY JAMES EDWARDS. 



{Concluded from page 59). 



D. minki, Fieb. 

 Scott introduced this species to the British list on specimens 

 named for him by Fieber, so I now give it a place here. I cannot 

 learn that any one has ever seen a specimen of D. minki with the horn 

 of the pygofer simple, as figured by Fieber ; and Professor Then, the 

 great authority on Deltoceplialus, is of opinion that Fieber had 

 specimens of pascuellus before him when he described his D. minki. 

 Melichar (Cicad. von Mitt. Eur, p. 246) and Oshauin (Cat. Pal. 

 Hem., ii, p. 129) both treat the pascuellus of my Synopsis (Trans. 

 Ent. Soc. Lond., 1888, p. 46) as a synonym of minki, Fieb. ; this is 

 a mistake. A specimen sent to me by Dr. Puton as minki, Fieb. (the 

 one to which I referred I. c), had a lateral tooth near the apical third 

 on the horn of the pygofer, the form proper to pascuellus, Fall. 



Thamnotettix striatulella, mihi. 

 Professor Then, in his " Bemerkungen zu vier Cicadinen-species " 

 (Mitth. JS'aturw. Vereines Steiermark, 1900, pp. 258-262), has a 

 notice of sfriatulus, Fall., in which he treats of four varieties of that 

 species. The second of these is the insect which I described as 

 striatulella, and in this connection it may be well \o point out that his 

 figure of the membrum virile of sfriatulus (t. c. p. 260, fig. 3), though 

 it may represent an object similar to that which I have figured as the 

 cedeagus of striatulella (Ent. Mo. Mag., xxx, p. 106, fig. 2), cannot 

 also represent an object similar to that which I have figured 

 (/. c. fig. 5) as the cedeagus of siriatulus. I think that the sfriatulus 

 of Professor Then and sfriatulus of English writers are not the same 

 species, and I have not at this moment the means of determining 

 which is really the insect described by Fallen. 



ClCADULA WARTONI, Leth. 



According to Puton and Oshauin, this name is to be used for 

 the insect which Dr. Melichar and myself regarded as fasciifrons, 

 Stal. I do not find in the description of toarioni any justification for 

 the change. 



ClCADULA livida, mihi. 



In view of Dr. Horvath's opinion (Ann. Mus. Hung., i (1903), 



