28 



ON SOME CONTROVEKSIAL ITEMS GON(]ERNING 

 A FEW HEMIPTERA 



by l<]. Kergi'Olli 



\n niy paper on Colobathristidse in thèse « Annales » 1910, p. 295 

 I wrole : « For Colobalhi'istidce Distant later (1903) mistook a genus 

 of the Myodochid subfamilies Malcinse and Heterogastrinœ respec- 

 tively». Mr. Distant (Ann. Soc. Ent. Helg., 1910, p. 418) cannot 

 deny the fact, but finds fault with this statement and « to make the 

 discussion clearer», he points out, mter alla, that « tlie objection 

 was really made by Breddin (1907) though now repeated by Ber- 

 GROTri)).The fact is, however, that Horvàtii three years before 

 Breddin pointed out that Malcus forms a distinct subfamily and 

 that Arlemidoi'us belongs to the Heterogastriiife. It is thus to 

 Dr. HoRVÂTH rather than to me Mr. Distant ought tohave addressed 

 his anti-criticism, for in giving a brief historical review of what 

 had been written on tlie Colobathristidœ I had, of course, simply 

 to repeat Horvàtu's statement, the correctness of which I do iiot 

 doubt for a moment. Mr. Distant says that it would perhaps bave 

 been lietter for me lo mention the fact that the subfamily Malcidas 

 proposed liy Stâl (1865) was subsequently discarded by Stâl 

 himself in bis En. Hem. IV, p. 170 (1874), where he places Malcus 

 under « gênera et species Lygseidarum incerti loci systematici ». 

 I could not mention such a « fact» because it would hâve been a 

 deliberate misstatement. If Stâl in bis Enum. Hem. IV had placed 

 Malcus in any of his other sultfamilies, I had had the right to say 

 that he had discarded his subfamily I\Ialcida\ But the type o[ Malcus 

 was destroyed or mislaid in 1874 (which is clearly indicated by the 

 absence of the words « Mus. Holm. » afler the name) and thus 

 unknown to StAl himself who consequently could not locate it 

 definitely in his System of 1874, but naturally placed it among the 

 gênera incerta^ sedis where he never put species known to him. 

 I know Malcus flavidipes Stâl (scutellatus Dist.) ami quite agrée 

 with HoRvÀTU and Biu'.ddfn in l'egardiug Ihe IMalcinpea well founded 

 subfamily. 



As to Arieiii/dovus Mv. DisiwsT says he is « slill a heretic ». In 

 1903 Distant placed Colohraihristes Burm. (sensu lato Stâli) = 

 Curupira DiST. in the f.iinily Coreidae, and Arte m idorus Dist. in the 

 Colobathristinse of the fiimily Lygœidœ. The logical conséquence of 

 Mr. Distant's « heresy » is that he now has to show : 1) that and 

 why Coiobathnsf.es and Aricutidorus, far from belonging to différent 

 familles, are really nearly related gênera; 2) thaï and why Horvàth 



