1916] Van Duzee — Note on Genus Hyoidea Puton l^l 



NOTE ON GENUS HYOIDEA PUTON (HEMIPTERA). 



By E. p. Van Duzee, 

 Berkeley, California. 



Mr. Otto Heidemann has very kindly sent to me for examina- 

 tion a cotype of Hyoidea horvathi Montd. and a careful examina- 

 tion of this confirms my assignment of this genus and Bolteria 

 Uhler in my synoptical tables of the Miridte recently published 

 by the University of California and in the Check List of the He- 

 miptera, in both of which I drop Hyoidea as wanting in our fauna 

 and arrange Bolteria in the Phylini near Plagiognathus. Dr. Reu- 

 ter did not know Bolteria amicta, the type of the genus, but placed 

 'picta in Hyoidea and described a new species grisea. An exami- 

 nation of fresh material of jncta shows that it wants the free con- 

 verging arolia found in Hyoidea and must be placed in Subfamily 

 Phylinse. It is probably safe to assume that amicta is congeneric 

 with picta although the type is lost and so far as I know the species 

 is now unrecognized. 



I am also indebted to Mr. Heidemann for the opportunity of 

 examining typical examples of Hyoidea grisea Renter, and, as Mr. 

 Heidemann suggests in his letter to me, this proves to be a synonym 

 of Lahopidea chloriza Uhler. I am, however, convinced that both 

 chloriza and grisea are identical with the earlier described Tini- 

 cephalus simplex Uhler and that we must use the generic name 

 Lahopidea for the species. Hyoidea differs from Lahopidea in 

 having a more polished surface with punctured pronotum, a longer 

 and more parallel form with the pronotum but little wider behind, 

 and a sharp and carinate hind margin to the vertex. The aspect 

 of Hyoidea is cjuite different from Lahopidea and I believe it should 

 be considered distinct. Both of these genera have free converg- 

 ing arolia and belong to the Orthotylini. 



