some I'.thiopiuH Ulii/tichoUt. 29.'» 



dull opaque ; anterior tibiju and fi'inora (excluding trochanters) 

 of equal length. 



liong. 19 mm. 



Ilah. Transvaal ; Waterberg {Zatrzenha, Fret. Mus. and 

 Coll. Dist.). 



Fani. SaldidsB. 

 Genus Vallerolia. 



Vallcrnlia, Dist. Fiuni. B. I., Rhynch. ii. p. 40-5 (li)Ol). 

 Leptopits, l>cr;.'-r. (nee Latr.) Wien. entoin. Zeit. xxv. p. 8 (1900) ; 

 Rent. Die Klassif. der Capsiden, p. 3 (1905). 



The genus Vallerolia was founded and placed in the 

 SaldinfB, to which it belongs by possessing only t'.vo ocelli, 

 the Leptopime possessing three. Bergroth, in some miscel- 

 laneous assertions {suprh)^ has strongly declared it to be 

 congeneric with Leptopus^ Latr., and Reuter {supra) supports 

 this contention in a footnote to a paper defending and advo- 

 cating his classificatory views on the CapsidaB. As the 

 question has a remote Ethiopian interest it may be referred 

 to here. 



In 1878 Costa described a species as Leptopus assuanensis, 

 which Reuter redescribed as L. niloticus in 1881, and Bergroth 

 once more described as L. strigipes in 1891. Both the two 

 latter writers in correcting themselves have sought to add my 

 Vallerolia Greeni from Ceylon to the list of synonyms. In 

 describing Vallerolia I gave the ocelli as only two in number, 

 and fearing (after perusing the indictments of Bergrotii and 

 Reuter) that 1 might have overlooked a third, 1 placed the 

 type of the genus under a microscope, and, with these con- 

 ditions, sought the opinion of Mr. E. E. Austen, the well- 

 known dipterist, and of Mr. E. Waterhouse, an experienced 

 British coleopterist, who were also both satisfied that the 

 number of the ocelli was hoo. 



It therefore follows that if V. Greeni is really the same 

 species as the synonyms of Leptopus assuanensis created by 

 Reuter and Bergroth, it is they who have failed to recognize 

 the proper genus and have placed their synonyms in the 

 wrong subfamily, for Leptopus is known as possessing three 

 ocelli, though neither of ray critics has alluded to the number 

 of ocelli in his synonymical descriptions. 



Ann (fc Mag, N. Hist. Ser. 7. Vol. xviii. 21 



