229 



culpable error I must possess the sympathy of my vigilant critic. 

 A similar calamity occurred to Bergroth himself when be descri- 

 bed a Pentatomid (which had also previously been correctly 

 placed, named and figured) as an Aradid, and as with my own 

 error, under a newly proposed genus in the wrong family. 



Bergroth states that the species I described from Bornéo as 

 Abgarus typicus is a species of /Ethalotus from which the head had 

 been detatched « and then glued on to the thorax ». Of course if 

 this were so it would almost prove that clairvoyance is another 

 qualification of the contentions Doctor, for hehas not otherv^àse seen 

 the unique type in my collection. The head has not been detatched, 

 nor is there the slightest évidence of « glue ». He describes the 

 genus as a mère « artefact ». Of course the possibility of structural 

 accidents is a real one. Bergroth himself has afîorded an illus- 

 tration. In my « Indian Rhynchota (III, p. 247) » I described and 

 figured a species of Homoptera as Pntala maculata. In 1907, 

 Bergroth (Wien. p]nt. Zeit.) gave a description of another suppo- 

 sed species under the name of P. sima which he stated differed 

 from my species in the shape of the apical process to the head. 

 This was merely a not uncommon distortion in closely packed 

 spirit spécimens!... I bave seen Bergroth's type. P. maculata and 

 P. sijua are both absolutely identical. 



Both Bergroth and Horvath in criticising my work differ also 

 from one another. Thus Horvath, as I do, uses the old family 

 name Lygaîidse, whilst Bergroth follows Kirkaldy's ruling in 

 employing the name Myodochidee. Horvath has recently pronoun- 

 ced my genus Artemidorus as a synonym of Hyginus. Bergroth 

 takes a différent view, probably from the totally différent charac- 

 ters, but as I am concerned, he can only say « Distant may he 

 right in regarding it as distinct », Bergroth writes « The gênera 

 Esmunus (1) Dist. and Euhemerus Dist. placed in the Hetero- 

 gastrinae, are so like Blissinse, that I suppose they will prove to 

 belong to this subfamily even if the membranal nervures are 

 correctly figured ». Thèse are both correctly figured and described 

 and locate the gênera, according to Stâl's ruling, in the Heteroga- 

 stringe. Bergroth seems to favour the idea that if gênera « are so 

 !ike Blissinse » they must be placed there, in spite of their mem- 

 branal characters. What than becomes of the value of structural 

 characters to which my censor asserts I hâve « a répugnance »? 

 Horvath however goes further and states that both Esmun and 

 Euhemerus are the same and that both = Blissus. Truly critics 

 disagree with one another! 



(1) I take it that Bergroth liere nieaiis Esmun. 



