128 Eighteenth Report State Entomologist of Minnesota — 1920 



McAtee). MASSACHUSETTS.— <3 July 18, Beach Bluff (H. M. 

 Parshley). ONTARIO, CANADA— 5 "Grimsby" (J. Petit). 



In describing grandis, Uhler had under observation at least four 

 different species and made allowance to cover all the forms he had 

 seen of what he took to be merely variations. Nearly everv species 

 collected from the United States that is larger than nebiilosits has at 

 one time or another stood under that name. This condition doubtless 

 resulted from the fact that in the past a hand lens furnished the onlv 

 means of magnification for the study of specimens. Before the advent 

 of the binocular microscope it was probably not even suspected that 

 so many species of Deraeocoris could exist and yet be so similar in 

 general appearance. 



The writer has recently received from the National Museum 

 through the kindness of Mr. E. H. Gibson and later by assistance of 

 Miss Emma Wells, all the specimens from the Uhler collection that 

 stood under the name Camptohrochis grandis. There are nine speci- 

 mens and one pin upon which the specimen has been destroyed. The 

 writer finds this material to be composed of the following: Deraeocoris 

 nitenatits, S Aug. 12, 1898. Madison, N. J., 2, "Pa. 2151"; D. fith 

 vescens (Rent.), ? May 8, Las Vegas. N. Mex. (Barber & Schwarz) ; 

 D. nigritnliis, ?, District of Columbia ( Pergande ) ; D. grandis (Uhler) 

 5, "Grimsby" [Doubtless: Grimsby, Ontario, Can.. (J. Petit)], no 

 date but identification label and locality in Uhler's handwriting; D. 

 apliidiphagiis n. sp.. $ July 15. 1893, Glen Echo, Md. ; Lygus pratensis 

 oblineatns (Say), ? June 6, 1892. "Banft Sp Alb"; D. barberi n. sp., 

 2 Aug. 13, Las Vegas, N. Mex. ( H. S. Barber), labeled "Campfo- 

 brochis grandis var."; D. borcalis (Van D.), 2 Aug. 28. 1888, Mar- 

 quette, Mich. ; one pin with specimen destroyed, June 6. 1893, Glen 

 Echo, Md. 



The composite species, grandis Uhler. was described early in 1887 

 and the material from which the description was drawn must have 

 been collected not later than 1886. In the LThler collection the only 

 possibility for a type is the specimen from "Cirimsby" Ontario. Can. 

 (J. Petit) without date, and judging by the age of the name label, in 

 Uhler's handwriting, it must be the only specimen saved from those 

 which served for the description of 1887. Since this specimen ap- 

 pears to be the only possible choice it seems advisal)le to designate it 

 as the type. In reality the species is distinguished in the original de- 

 scription from the several closely related species, some of which 

 were likewise included in the descri])tion, only l)y the long rostrum 

 "reaching behind the posterior coxae," and the large size. Several 



