;}27 



Dr. 0. M. Reuter ou tlie gemis Yalleriola. 



]>\ W. L. Distaiit (Sdutli Nnrwuod, Surn'v. F.ii^l;iinli. 



Tu a rocciit issiic o\' tliis Zcitimii' (antr p. iMl). Dr. K'ciiti'r 

 lias [tiiltlislicd an articlc. or latlicr a personal attaik. in whicli lic 

 lias alloMcd liinisclt'. to usc cxitrcssions not t^vncrallv ciinsidcrcd 

 eonrtcdiis in scicntilic discussion^). I do nt)t «-omplain of tliis as it 

 is (piitr inunatorial. hiit lif lias sn obseurod (lic ({ncstinn Itctwocn 

 ns. tliat it is nceossarv. Ikiwcvit 1 disliko contruvtM'sy. t(» niakc smui' 

 r<'ply in (•((innmn l'aii'ncss to mysolf. The niatter iu dispute is nnl'oi- 

 tunately of the most trivial detail, and scarcel.v likely to liirther tlie 

 cause üf entomolooy. 



In 1904 T proposod tlip gonns Vallrriohi Inr a speeies of 

 Saldiddp, l)elunp,inii' to tln^ subfam. Snhlii/ar by possessiiio- only two 

 ocelli, as distinguisbed IVoni the snblani. Lei)topi))ap known by tlie 

 possession of throo ocelli, and I lioured the typical speeies. J reeeived 

 a letter fi'oni Dr. Renter saying' that he considered it a synonym 

 of Ltpfop/is (iss/iaiic/isis Costa, whicli the had redeseribed as 

 /v. m'lolicKs in 18?^1. and Bero-roth had ayain redeseribed as 

 L. s/ri(/ij)('s in 1891. I rejilied (the press copy of the letter is now 

 before nie) that I thoii^^lit I had foUowed liiiii in sepai'atini^' the 

 S((/(/i//<ic iVom the LcjtfojHitdc by the possession ol only t\vo ocelli. 

 and in that case the two speeies coiild not be the saine bot iiiiist belong 

 to different ,i>'enera. and askiny- hini to let me see a cotype of liis 

 L. iiilolicKs so that I could niake any necessary correction in the 

 appendix of my volnmes oii the Indian Rhynchota. I reeeived iio rejily, 

 Init snbseqn(Mitly >sein Freund Bero-roth« (Wien. Kntoniol. 

 Zeit. XXV. \). S. 190G) aniong some other miscellaneous assertions, 

 stronoly deelared Yalleriola to be congeneric witli Leptopiis. 'fhere the 

 matter might have rested so far as I was concerned Ibr untor- 

 tunalely I have not the tinie (»f reply to all the strictures of that 

 accomplished homeromastix. Bnt Reuter in a remarkable polemic 

 (Die Klassilikation der Capsiden) in whicli I was reproved lor not 

 following his method with the Capsidiir added a footnote. tw show 

 my utter unreliability on these questions, stating that 1 ha<l «lescribed 

 this Leptopid as a Saldid. T therefore feil called lipon to explain 

 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Plist | 7J, XVIII, p. 293, 1906) that if any mistake 

 had been made with the position of tlie speeies, it was Reuter 

 and Bergroth who had placed it in the wrong snbfamily. for 1 had 



'J A.S l^nsiiiii , ;i \v;uit in n(irm;il und lugiscli Di'ukrn : Ahsunlitiit' etr. 

 Wionor Entoinologische Zeitung, XXVl. .I.ihrff., lieft .K (5. Okteber 1907). 



