62 



a little raised. Fore femora slightly more incrassate than in R. 

 kahavalu. Membranal venation much as in the latter, but the medial 

 veins are more parallel. 

 Length, Si/g-lO mill. 



Hab. Oahu, Waialtia, Koolau range (March) ; Molokai, 3<X)o 

 ft. (June) ; Lanai, 2000 ft. (Feb.) ; Hawaii, Kona, 5000 ft. 

 (June), collected in these places by Dr. Perkins. I have also 

 taken it on Hawaii, Kilauea (Nov. and May), on Pukeawe 

 {Cyathodes tameiameiae, one of the Epacridaceae), in company 

 with the Asiracid Nesosydnc cyaihodis Kirkaldy. 



There were some mistakes in my original description, which 

 can be corrected by reference to the above. 



This species and the next hold a sort of intermediate position 

 between R. blackhurni and the snhnifiis series ; the base of the 

 pronotum is more than twice as wide as the collar but is not 

 noticeably raised. R. tarai is easily recognized by its immaculate 

 red or reddish tegmina ; the antennae and legs are not annulate 

 or at most very indistinctly. The veins of the median area of 

 the membrane are simple. All the examples 1 have collected 

 are very red, most of them fading considerably later on. but 

 Dr. Perkins tells me that the pale forms are met with. The type 

 of kaonohinia is very bright red, the membrane being opaque 

 milky. 



The type was a specimen from Lanai, the t3^pe of kaonohinia 

 being from Hawaii. 



The male hook was figured in the "Fauna Hawaiiensis." 



The nymph in the last instar is rather pretty when alive, being 

 clear pale green, marked with rosy, and harmonizes well with the 

 colouring of its host-plant. 



var. rnontivaga Kirkaldy. 



Rcdnviolns moniivagiis Kirkaldy, 1908, P. Haw. E. S., I., 192. 



This differs from the typical form by the immaculate yellow 

 pleura, etc. ft was collected in the Waimea Mts., Kauai. It 

 may be a good species, but I have not seen males, 



5. moral Kirkaldy. 



Rcdnviolus morai Kirkaldy, 1902, Faun. Haw., HI, 155, PI- 

 5, f. 39 (not 39a). 



This species was sufficiently accurately defined in 1902, except 

 that the last three lines should be deleted, as the annulations of 

 the legs are rather obscure. It is, with the next, readily recog- 

 nizable by its stouter form and short first segment of the anten- 

 nae, and by the closely spotted tegmina, but is distinguishable 



