143 



ferrugijiei, remote nigro-punctati, tibiis quattuor anterioribus 

 superne teretibus, posticis sulcatis, articulis tarsorum apice nigri- 

 cantibus. — Long. Ç 15.5 mill., lat. thor. 11 mill. 

 Nova Caledonia. 



This species seems to be very closely allied to U. Albertisi Dist., 

 but as the membrane, which is usually very constant in colour, is 

 described as a cupreous », and the tubercle on the hind margin of 

 the pronotal humerai process is not mentioned, and as it is from 

 New Guinea, I do not thinlt it is the same species. Moreover the 

 punctures of the pronotum, scutelium, and corium are not descri- 

 bed as brassy green but as adark»; yet this character could be 

 variable. The rostrum in my spécimen being incomplète, I cannot 

 State its length. 



The genus Nessula Bredd. (November 1900) is identical with 

 Utana Dist. (May 1900) which was founded on Cuspicona suprema 

 Walk., of which I bave seen a spécimen. Breddin gave a very 

 good description of the genus, but in describing the anterior half 

 of the pronotum he uses the expression glahra (hairless) instead of 

 laevis (impunctate), and bis statement of the basai lobes of the 

 female génital segment « latitudini suse basali œquilongis vel ea 

 parum longioribus » is only a spécifie character. To Breddin's 

 generic description should be added : « Tubercula antennifera e 

 supero visa ullra lalera capitis magna parte prominula; segmentum 

 sexlum ventrale feminœ apice modice emarginatum, medio quam 

 lateribus longius aut saltem haud brevius. » Breddin correctly 

 placed the genus near Zangis Stâl (Giawctas Kirk (1)), and it has 

 much in common with StAl's division ee of that genus. Distant 

 placed it near Cuspicona Dall and Pugione Stâl, but the structure 

 of the sixth female ventral segment, etc., is sufficient to show 

 that il does not belong to the division Rhynchocoriaria at ail. From 

 informations aboul the genus A rtiblyhelus Montr., received from 

 Dr. SciiouTEDEN who possesses Ihe type, I find that Utana cannot 

 be identical with that genus. — The Pliilippine Pegala Clemensœ 

 Dist., of which l liave a spécimen before me, is not a Pegala, from 

 which it dilïers by distinct (not effaced) pronotal basai angles, 

 distinctiy sinuated (not straight) pronotal basai margin, quite 

 différent fades, and, above ail, by the characters pointed out by 

 Stâl in Enum. Hem. V, p. 67, footnote, to which Distant seems to 

 hâve paid no attention. It belongs to StAl's above mentioned divi- 



(l) KiRKALDY proposed the uew name because Zangis has beeu used by Gistl. 

 1 hâve previously (Eut. News 1912, p. 24-25) giveii the reasous why Gistl's 

 uames of 1848, with very few if any exceptions, cannot be taken iuto considé- 

 ra tiou. 



