1 
i 
364 Additions and Corrections. 
In the table, on p. XXII, I placed the Urolabididae with the Coreidae rather 
than the Cimicidae, but although the lateral keel on the head is very short and not 
very distinct, it is there and the venation etc. place the family among the Cimicoi- 
deae (restr.). Reuter is certainly correct in declining to admit it as a subfamily of 
the Cimicidae. 
The Cimicoideae may then be separated into families as follows: 
1 (4) Lateral keels of head well defined; radial and median veins of tegmen sub- 
contiguous for half their length. ait 
2 (3) Six urotergites clearly visible; tibiae not spiny . 1. Cimicidae (vol. I). 
3 (2) Only five urotergites clearly visible; tibiae spiny . 2. Thyreocoridae (vol. Il). 
4 (1) Lateral keels of head indistinct, very short; radial and median veins of tegmen 
diverging from the base . . . . . . . . . 8. Urolabididae (vol. Il). 
I will also add here that my friend Bueno is certainly correct in separating 
the Hydrometridae and Naeogeidae as distinct families, from the Gerrididae, though 
I do not agree with him that the Hydrometridae are allied to the Reduviidae; I will 
deal with these questions, however, in their proper places. 
(b) Printer’s and other minor errors. 
p. 3, line 16, for “white” read “while”. 
10, line 26, for “Afriws” read “Cimex’’. 
13, for “plepeja” read “plebeja”; and for “rubustus” read “robustus”’. 
22, for “Iuridus” read “lurida’’. 
23, line 17, for “Gal-” read ‘“Gat-”’. 
24, for “malabaricus” read “=ca”’. 
25, for “Hoploxus” read ‘“-xys”’. 
27, footnote, line 1, put a “;” after “type”. 
30, delete ‘|| before “Stictonotion”’. 
32, for “deeastigma” read “-mus”’. 
50, for “pretoria” read “praet-”. 
51, line 17, from bottom, for “18?” read “1889”. 
53, line 4, for “Liodermia” read “-rma”; and line 12 from bottom, for “9” read “8”. 
54, for “abies” read ‘“Ab-”. 
55, after “signoretc” insert “Jakovlev”. 
61, line 17, for “op. cit.” read “B.C. A. Het. I.” 
63, line 3 of Huschistus for “apicalis = heros” read “tristigmus”’. 
81, line 12, Hahn used “Eys-”; Fieber “Hus-”. 
~82, delete ‘“Pseudostollia” and its details. 
82, in footnote, insert “been” between “not” and “able”. 
85, pustulatus, read “Eysarcoris’’. 
' 98, “hyprocrita” should be “hypocrita’” all through. ; 
104, line 9 from bottom, “Breddin . . . 22” should be placed after “var.” on the 
next line. 
113, line 2 from bottom, after “CO.” insert “incarnatus var.” as regards Lethierry 
et Severin. 
115, line 15, Stal used “camatula’, Van Duzee “-lus”. 
116, “P. lata’, delete “searcely described”. 
119, line 41, for “In.” read “Ins.” 
121, line 3 from bottom, for “VIII” read “7”. 
124, line 32, Van Duzee uses “brunneip-”. 
125, footnote, add: “although Stal states that it is scarcely typical”. 
128, line 22—24, read “§§ Kershaw and Kirkaldy 1909 J. Bombay N. H. 8. p. 177, 
P. B. (o—a) [as “anchorago’!] Foodplant: “Pavetta indica’. 
+129, line 18, for “javana” read “hilaris”’. 
"130, line 16, for “Fraximus” read “Fraxinus”; line 38, for “209” read “208”. 
135, for “Brachyeorus” read “-ris”. 
136, line no. 7, line 6, after ‘“Piezodorus” read “do.”; footnote, for “at” read “as’’. 
138, all Westwood's species of Rhaphigaster are spelt without the first “h”. 
139, after “Murua” read “;”; in “Bathycoelia no. 3”, the locality should read 
“Belgian Kongo”. 
