:}2T 



Dr. 0. M. Reuter oii the genus Valleriola. 



Bv W. L. instant (Soutli Norwond, Siin-ry. En.uhuKl). 



In n recent issue of this Zeitung (ante p. 211), I)r, Heut er 

 lias jmhlished an articlo, i>r rather a personal attack, in whicli lic 

 lias allowed hiniself, tu iise oxpressions not o-ciicraliv considfrcd 

 oourteous in scientilic discussion^). I do not coiuplain of this as it 

 is (juito immatorial, but ho has so ol)scurod tlio questi<»n Itctwoon 

 US, tliat it is nocpssary, hovvover I dislike controvorsy, to inal<<' sdHio 

 roply in common fairness to nn'solf. Tho matter in dispute is unf(»r- 

 tunatelj of the most trivial detail, and searcely likely to further tho 

 cause of entomology. 



In 1904 I proposed the genus Val/rn'ota for a species of 

 Sdhlidac, belonging to the siil)fiim. Sahlhiae by possessing only two 

 ocelli, as distinguished from the subfam. Lepiopinac known by the 

 possession of three ocelli, and I tigured the typical species. I received 

 a letter from Dr. Reuter saying that he considered it a synonym 

 of Leptopxs assufurensis Costa, which the had redescribed as 

 L. )tiloticHs in 1881, and Bergroth had ag-ain redescribed as 

 L. strifiipcs in 1891. I replied (the press copy of the letter is now 

 l)efore nie) that I thought I had followed him in separating the 

 Sahlinae from the Lepfophiae l)y the possest^iou of only two ocelli. 

 and in that case the two species could not be the same but must belong 

 to different genera, and askiug him to let me see a cotype of bis 

 L. uUoticus so that I could make any necessary correction in the 

 appendix of my volumes on the Indiau Rhynchota. I received no reply, 

 but subsequently »sein Freund Bergroth« (Wien. Entomol. 

 Zeit. XXV. p. 8. 1906) among some other miscellaneous assertions, 

 strongly declared Valleriola to be congeneric with Leptopm. There the 

 matter niight liave rested so far as I was concerned for untor- 

 tunalely I have not the time of reply to all the strictures of that 

 accomplished homeromastix. But Reuter in a remarkable polenüc 

 (Die Klassifikation der Capsiden) in which I was reproved for not 

 following his method with the CapsUlae added a footnote. t« show 

 my utter unreliability on these questions, stating that I had (U^scribed 

 this Leptopid as a Saldid. I therefore feil called upon to explain 

 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. |7 J, XVIII, p. 293, 1906) that if any ^listake 

 had been made with the position of the species, it was Reuter 

 and Bergroth wlio had placed it in the wrong subfamily, for I had 



») As Uasinu , a want in ^normal und logisch Denken«: Absurdität« etc.- 



Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, XXVf. Jahr^., Heft X (5, Oktober 1907). 



