66 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



short posterior tarsi, the tibiae are curved somewhat backwards 

 at the apex, but they do not resemble those in the Hoplophorini, 

 being besides to a high degree depressed, not compressed. The 

 presence of this interesting oblique compression in the little 

 group (the Hoplophorini) renders it impossible for me to refer 

 the form of their structure to the plan which presumably is 

 expressed in the shape of the posterior tibiae in all remaining 

 Membracinae. If one examines the posterior tibiae — for example, 

 in Ulopa, Fall., .-Ethalion, Latr., Cetitrotus, F., Darnis, F., 

 Smilia, Germ., and very many important genera — it is seen 

 that they are tricarinate, most often sharply tricarinate, with 

 strong bristles on the margins, and that the posterior surface 

 is always broad, scarcely ever narrower, most often broader 

 than the other surfaces, so that the posterior tibiae never 

 display a tendency towards compression, as in Jassinae, but 

 contrariwise are often somewhat depressed; only in Polyglypta, 

 Burm., have I found them almost round, the edges being 

 strongly rounded off. In the group ''Membracida," Stal, 

 and various genera of ** Centrotida," Stal, the depressing is, as 

 is well known, so far carried on that the tibiae are foliaceous. In 

 various species of the genus Aconophora, Fairm,, in Heteronotus, 

 Lap., and many forms, the tibiae have a tendency to become 

 quadricarinate, so that on the anterior side one finds two sub- 

 contiguous rows of small spines or bristles, but they are clearly 

 depressed,* and the posterior sui'face is very broad and altogether 

 dominant. It may be objected that this characterization lacks 

 sharpness, but it seems obvious to me, nevertheless, that, despite 

 all secondary changes, essential differences are typically found in 

 the structure of the posterior legs in the JassinaB and Membra- 

 ciuae in the circumscription of these here set forth. 



In the Hem. Afr. pp. 82-83, Stul separates his first five sub- 

 families from the " Centrotida" by " Scutellum absent or obso- 

 lete, not extended beyond the metanotum," in opposition to the 

 fact in Centrotida: "Scutellum distinct, produced backwards 

 beyond the metanotum." In the first place, this character is 

 wrongly expressed, because if one removes the pronotal posterior 

 lobe— for example, in Smilia — one finds a good-sized scutellum, 

 and one can therefore only state to what degree the scutellum is 

 hidden or visible ; in the second place, the other part of the 

 character is not correct, for Stal himself writes on the Centrotid 

 genus Oeda, Am. and Serv., in * Hemiptera Fabriciana,' p. 49, 

 " no complete scutellum," in contradistinction to " scutellum 

 complete, produced " — for example, inStegaspis, Germ, ; thirdly, 

 the character may well be practically useful, but effects, in my 

 opinion, an artificial, not a natural, separation ; for genera like 

 Hypsauclienia, Germ., and Lycoderes, Germ., stand far nearer, 



* In the original, " sammentrykte " is a misprint, so the author informs 

 me, for " tladtrykte."— G. W. K. 



