"CUERENT CRITICISM." 59 



artigen Insecten ' are wrongly dated by Mr. Distant, often by 

 three or four years. 



Metacanthus — vol. i. 422 — was erected by Fieber, Eur. Hem. 

 55 (I860), not 213 (1861), and so with most of Fieber's genera 

 cited from this work. 



Nahis—Yol ii. 399— was founded 1802, not 1807. 



'' Nahis viriduhis, Spin. — ii. 402 — was proposed 1837, not 

 1840, and this applies to other citations of Spinola's ' Essai.'" 



''Aphana pulchella, Guer."— iii. 203. The text of the 'Co- 

 quille' was published in 1838, not 1830. 



" Aph(e7ia variegata'' — iii. 204 — should be dated 1833, not 

 1834. 



Polydictya, Guer. — iii. 215. The " texte " of the Icon. 

 Kegne Anim. was not published before 1844, probably not till 

 1845. Mr. Distant cites 1830-4 ! 



The correct dates of these have all been published in the 

 ' Entomologist,' some of them many years ago. I do not expect 

 Mr. Distant to accept without confirmation my notes on dates 

 and synonymy, but if he chooses to disregard them without 

 examination he cannot claim exemption from criticism. 



With regard to the classification of the Miridse (or Capsidae), 

 it is a pity that Mr. Distant neglected to read the papers he 

 cites. 



I did not, as Mr. Distant affirms, propose a new classification, 

 but distinctly stated (Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. xxxii. p. 117) that 

 the object of my list was simply to enumerate the genera, geno- 

 types, &c., and that it should be considered as a bibliographical 

 contribution. I followed the latest Eeuterian system known to 

 me, adding the Hypseloecini, Fulviini, and Clivinemini, founded 

 by Keuter himself, together with seven monotypic tribes whose 

 position was very doubtful. This, according to Mr. Distant, was 

 my new classification ! It may be added that — like Keuter and 

 all those, in fact, who have studied the Miridae — it was the very 

 numerous and very insufficiently characterized genera of Mr. 

 Distant that rendered fuller elaboration impossible. 



It was some time after the " list " had passed the final proof 

 — and, indeed, after partial issue as "published"* — that I 

 received Dr. Eeuter's classification. I at once studied it, and 

 have come to the conclusion that it is a remarkable piece of work, 

 and probably represents the real classification of known forms 

 very closely, although I recognize that many of the characters 

 used are very subtle, and render the study of this difficult group 

 even harder. Of. the fifty-six " addenda and emendanda " made 

 in the ' Canadian Entomologist ' (and, through a misunder- 

 standing, also issued in my Separata of the " list," as pp. 156 a- 

 156 6, though I do not think they have been actually published), 



'■' The earlier pages are dated " March, 1906," but I cannot accept this as 

 " publication." 



