326 On some undescrihed Cicacllda3. 



In the '■ 'J'ransactions of the New Zealand Institute,' 

 vol. xxiii. p. 49 (1890), Mr. G. V. Hudson has published a 

 paper on " New Zealand CicadaB " *, 



Cicada rauta^ Huds. I. c. p. 51. — Mr. Hudson thus refers 

 to tlie well-known Melampsrjlta muta^ Fabr., and describes 

 several varieties which apparently belong to two distinct 

 sj>ecies — M. mutcij Fabr., and M. angusta, Walk. These 

 varieties have also previously been described by Walker as 

 distinct species, while Mr. Hudson again describes under the 

 name of Cicada aprilina {I. c. p. 53) another form of the 

 Fabrician species. The .synonymy is as follows : — ■ 



Melampsalta muta. 



Tettigonia muta, Fabr. Ent. Syst. 4, p. 2j. n. .3-5 (ITZi) ; Syst. Rhyiig. 



p. 43. n. o3 (1808). 

 Cicada muta, Oliv. Enc. Metb. v. p. 757. n. 48 (1790). 

 Cicada cutora. Walk. List Horn. i. p. 172. n. 116 (1850). 

 Cicada ochrina, Walk. List Horn., Suppl. p. 34 (1858). 

 Melampsalta muta, Stal, (Efv. Vet.-Ak. Inirb. 1802, p. 484. 

 Cicada muta, Iliids. (part.), Trans. X. Zeal. Inst, xxiii. p. 51 (1890). 

 Cicada aprilina, Huds. ibid. p. 5?> (1890). 



Melampsnlta angusfa. 



Cicada aur/usta, Walk. List Horn. i. p. 174. n. 121 (1850) ; Stal, (Efv. 



Vet.-Ak. Fiirli. 186i', p. 482. 

 Cicada rosm. Walk. Li.st Honi. i. p. 220. n. 173 (1850). 

 Cicada iHliwa, AValk. List FLini., Su])pl. p. 34 (1858). 

 Melampsalta rosea, StSl, tEfv. Vet.-Ak. Forli. 1802, p. 484. 

 Cicada muta, Iluds. (part.), Traus. N. Zeal. Inst, xxiii. p. 51 (1890). 



Cicada iristisj Huds. I. c. p. 52, = MehanpsaUa scuteUaris, 

 Walk. List Horn. i. p. 150. n. 88 (J 850). 



Cicada iolanthe, Huds. L c. p. 53, belongs to the genus 

 Melampsalta. In a book entitled ' An Elementary Manual of 

 New Zealand Entomology,' bearing date 1892, .Mr. Hudson 

 gives a figure of a Cicada iolanthe, sp. n., without any 

 description or reference to liis previous description in the 



* This family name should be more correctly spelt " Cicadidse," espe- 

 cially as Mr. Buckton has even more erroueously used the term '' Cioad;e " 

 for nearly the whole of the British Ilomoptera (* Monog. of the British 

 Cicad:i>,'"by G. ]}owdler Buekton, 1890-91). " Philosophical entomolo- 

 gists" who contemn " systematic entomologists" must at least be pro- 

 tected by their weaker brethren from forming wrong conclusions ou 

 careless svstennitic worlf. 



