-301 



mostly castaneous, the « metanotum and scutellum » in australis 

 are described as greyish-white. 



3. Pereg^rinus maidis (Ashmead). In his reply, M. Distant 

 does not mention that Lethierry figured liis « Dclphax psylloides ». 

 This figure is quite recognizable, and, for practical purposes, is 

 exactly like Ashmead's figure of maidis and Distant's figure of sim- 

 plicta. While M. Distant's spécifie mistake is unimportant, there is 

 no excuse for his placing simplicia in Pundaluoya and psylloides in 

 « Lihurnia », and disregarding Peregrinus and maidis, except that 

 lie had failed to consul t the necessary lite rature. 



I hâve a cotype of P. maidis from Florida, and I hâve examined 

 the species from Ceylon, Java, Fiji, Australia and Havv^aii, while 

 M. VanDuzee records it from Jamaica and M.Ballou from Barbados. 



M. Distant, in his concluding remarks on p. 222, seems to me to 

 misapprehend some of the problems of géographie distribution. 

 Insects that feed on grasses (or other plants used for fodder or 

 human food) and oviposit therein are partieularly liable to extraor- 

 dinary dissémination. Zea mays, the principal food-plant of Pere- 

 grinus maidis, is very widely grown and used for food, fodder and 

 so forth, and the wide dispersai of this hopper, in any stage is easily 

 aceomplished. Similarly, a sugareane pest, Perkinsiella saccha- 

 ricida, is in millions in Java, the Malay States, Australia and the 

 Hawaiian Isles. It is this easy commercial transportation of certain 

 kinds of insects that so obscures their natural distribution. 



M. Distant's view of the distribution of Orthœa vincta may be 

 correct, for 0. pacifica, originally described from Fiji, aiso oceurs 

 in Australia and bas quite recently slipped into the Hawaiian Isles; 

 it is probably not indigenous in Fiji. 



But Orthœa is not a partieularly easy genus; while the Asiracidae 

 are, if maies are présent, rather easy — though, it is true, laborious 

 — owing to the spécial development and exposure of the génital 

 hooks, etc. (which are of prime specifi.c importance), whereas thèse 

 aids are not available, except to a very much less degree, in the 

 Geoeoridœ. M. Distant's remarks thus lose their point. 



4. Among other matters, it may be mentioned that Arunta 

 Distant 1907 (as a Derbid) is préoccupied by the same author in 1904 

 (Gicadidse). As the former is only a synonym of Phantasmatocera 

 Kirkaldy 1906, there is no neeessity to rename it. 



In the « Fauna of British India — Rhynchota », vol. II (p. 154), 

 M. Distant cites versicolor as the type of Aradus I How a Herrich — 

 Schaefferian species can be the type of a Fabrician genus (except as 

 replacing a préoccupied name), I leave to M. Distant to explain. 



