186 



the scutellum, it isabsurdto place itin tlie Division Cantacaderaria 

 near Pliatnoma. 



As shown by Horvath Ayr(?rus Disr. is identical with Lrentius 

 DiST. Distant keeps it still as distinct because it bas no pronotal 

 hood. The hood is, however, absent also in the palearctic Lrentius 

 Chobauti HoRV. and is evidently only of spécifie importance in this 

 genus. 



Horvath bas shown that Belejius Dist. = Sakimtala ivirlc. As, 

 however, the name Sakimtala is preoccupied (Lameere, Coleop- 

 tera, 1890), the name Bclenus Dist. must be maintained. 



Elasniognathus nepalensis Dist. (1. c, p. 122) belongs to Diplo- 

 gomphus Horv., Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1906, p. 296, a genus not even 

 mentioned in Distaxt's book, although Horvath stated that the 

 Ceyionese Elasniognatlms Greeni Kirby appei'tains to it. 



Aradidae. — Acantharadus giganteus Banks, Philipp. Journ. 

 Se. IV, 580, pi. n, fig. 8 (1909) is identical with Dysodius quaterna- 

 rius Bergr., Verh. zool. bot. Ges. Wien XXXVI, 54, pi. H, fig. 3 

 (1886). It is not allied to Phyllotingis Walk. (Alyattes StAl), as 

 Banks says, but very closely so to the neotropical genus Dysodius 

 Lep. Serv. As the hind lobe of the pronotum is broader than the 

 fore lobe, not narrower than it as in Dysodius, 1 now tbink that 

 this species can be generically separated from Dysodius and it bas 

 to bear the name Acantharadus quaternaritis Bergr. 



Gerridae. — The genus Ures 't)isT. (Rhynch. Brit. Ind., V, 149) 

 is founded on a larval stage, of what genus is impossible to say. 

 Some other new Gerrid gênera described in the same book are 

 possibly also founded on larvse, but as Distant carefully avoids to 

 describe the tarsi and the génital segments, it is impossible to 

 know with certainty. In several families he bas founded new gênera 

 and species on larvfe, taking thetn for imagines, and on the other 

 hand he bas described apterous imagines as larvte (« immature » 

 spécimens) without naming them. It is obvions that he does not 

 know how to tell a larva from an imago, although in most cases a 

 glance at the tarsi is sufficient for this purpose. There is no reason 

 to name larva^. and I quite agrée with Michael and other authors, 

 that such names cannottake priority if the imago is described later 

 under an other name. 



The genus Ventidiu^ Distant (1. c, p. 156) is identical with Me- 

 trocoris Mayr. The differential characters given by Distant, « body 

 shorter and broader, and with hirsute antennœ », are only spécifie. 

 I bave an undescribed species from Burma which is fully as short 

 and broad as Ventidius aquarius Dist., but it cannot be generically 

 separated from Metrocoris. 



