﻿190 
  

  

  22. 
  N. 
  kamehameha 
  Kirkaldy. 
  

  

  23. 
  *N, 
  coenosulus 
  Stal. 
  

  

  24. 
  *N. 
  delectus. 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  25. 
  *N. 
  sp?. 
  \vhiitor 
  Kirkcaldy 
  olim]. 
  

  

  26. 
  tN. 
  arboricola 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  27. 
  tN. 
  blackborni 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  28. 
  tN. 
  dallasi 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  29. 
  tN. 
  longicollis 
  Blackhurn. 
  

  

  30. 
  tN. 
  mauiensis 
  Blackburn. 
  

  

  31. 
  tN. 
  nemofivagws 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  32. 
  tN. 
  nitidus 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  33. 
  tN. 
  pteridicola 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  34. 
  tN. 
  fubescens 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  35. 
  tN. 
  vuIcan 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  36. 
  tN. 
  whitei 
  Blackburn. 
  

  

  37. 
  *Merragfata 
  hebroides 
  F. 
  B. 
  White. 
  

  

  Family 
  Tingidae. 
  

  

  38. 
  *TeIeonemia 
  lantanae 
  Distant. 
  

  

  As 
  Distant 
  's 
  description 
  was 
  practically 
  useless, 
  and 
  as 
  I 
  felt 
  

   uncertain 
  of 
  the 
  distinction 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  from 
  T. 
  notata 
  Cham- 
  

   pion, 
  I 
  sent 
  specimens 
  to 
  Dr. 
  Bergroth, 
  who 
  is 
  the 
  greatest 
  living 
  

   general 
  authority 
  on 
  the 
  Heteroptera. 
  Dr. 
  Bergroth 
  confirms 
  it 
  

   as 
  a 
  good 
  species 
  and 
  tells 
  me 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  distinguished 
  at 
  

   once 
  from 
  T. 
  bifasciata 
  and 
  notata, 
  by 
  having 
  the 
  antennae 
  very 
  

   conspicuously 
  pilose 
  (not 
  indistinctly 
  and 
  almost 
  microscopically 
  

   so) 
  , 
  by 
  the 
  cellules 
  of 
  the 
  costal 
  membrance 
  {costal 
  area 
  Champion) 
  

   being 
  broad, 
  almost 
  subquadrate 
  (not 
  oblong 
  and 
  very 
  narrow), 
  

   and 
  by 
  the 
  cellules 
  of 
  the 
  costal 
  {subcostal 
  Champ.) 
  area 
  being 
  

   transverse 
  (not 
  oblong). 
  These 
  points 
  are 
  omitted 
  by 
  Distant, 
  

   but 
  are 
  the 
  fundamental 
  characters 
  of 
  the 
  species. 
  

  

  Family 
  Nabidae. 
  

  

  39. 
  Rcdtivioltjs 
  kahavaltt 
  Kirkaldy. 
  

  

  I 
  think 
  this 
  should 
  form 
  a 
  new 
  subgenus, 
  Nesomachetes, 
  

   characterized 
  by 
  the 
  almost 
  straight 
  lateral 
  margins 
  of 
  the 
  pron- 
  

   otum 
  and 
  consequent 
  feeble 
  elevation 
  of 
  the 
  hind 
  lobe, 
  by 
  the 
  

   immaculate 
  scutellum 
  and 
  non-annulate 
  antennae 
  and 
  legs. 
  The 
  

   hamus 
  of 
  the 
  wing 
  arises 
  from 
  the 
  connecting 
  vein, 
  almost 
  at 
  its 
  

  

  