66 THE ENTOMOLOtrlST. 



short posterior tarsi, the tibiae are curved somewhat backwards 

 at the apex, but they do not resemble those in the Hoplophorini, 

 being besides to' a high degree depressed, not compressed. The 

 presence of this interesting oblique compression in the little 

 group (the Hoplophorini) renders it impossible for me to refer 

 the form of their structure to the plan which presumably is 

 ^expressed in the shape of the posterior tibiae in all remaining 

 ^Mepabracinse. If one examines the posterior tibiae — for example, 

 m^Ulopa, Fall. P .Ethalion, hditv.,^Centrotus, F.,dDarnis, F., 

 VSmilia, Germ., and very many important genera — it is seen 

 that they are tricarinate, most often sharply tricarinate, with 

 strong bristles on the margins, and that the posterior surface 

 is always broad, scarcely ever narrower, most often broader 

 than the other surfaces, so that the posterior; tibiae never 

 display a tendency towards compression, as in^Jassinae, but 

 contrariwise are often 8om.evfha,t depressed ; only iiPPolyglypta, 

 Burm., have I found them almost round, the edges being 

 strongly rounded off. jnin the group ^"Membracida," Stal, 

 and various genera of '^Centrotida," Stal, the depressing is, as 

 is well known, so far carried on that the tibiae are foliaceous. In 

 various species of the gennsQAconophora, Fairm., irPHeteronotus, 

 Lap., and many forms, the tibiae have a tendency to become 

 quadricarinate, so that on the anterior side one finds two sub- 

 contiguous rows of small spines or bristles, but they are clearly 

 depressed,* and the posterior surface is very broad and altogether 

 dominant. It may be objected that this characterization lacks 

 sharpness, but it seems obvious to me, nevertheless, that, despite 

 all secondary changes, essential differences are typically found in 

 the structure of the posterior legs in the^Jassinas and Membra- 

 cinae in the circumscription of these here set forth. 



In the Hem. Afr, pp. 82-83, Stal separates his first five sub- 

 families from the "^^Centrotida " by " Scutellum absent or obso- 

 lete, not, extended beyond the metanotum," in opposition to the 

 fact in "^Centrotida : "Scutellum distinct, produced backwards 

 beyond the metanotum." In the first place, this character is 

 wrongly expressed, because if one renloves the pronotal posterior 

 lobe— for example, in" Smilia — one finds a good-sized scutellum, 

 and one can therefore only state to what degree the scutellum is 

 hidden or visible; in the second place, the other part of the 

 character is not correct, for Stal himself writes on the Centrotid 

 genu£Oeda, Am. and Serv., in ' Hemiptera Fabriciana,' p. 49, 

 " no complete scutellum," in contradistinction to " scutellum 

 complete, produced " — for example, iirStegaspis, Germ, ; thirdly, 

 the character may well be practically useful, but effects, in my 

 opinion, an artificial, not a natural, separation ; for genera like 

 Hypsauchenia, Germ., Sind^ Lycoderes, Germ., stand far nearer, 



* In the original, " sammeutrykte " is a misprint, so the author informs 

 me, for "fladtrykte."— G. W.K. 



