480 Dr. C. Stal on the British Museum 



and these again to three very distinct groups or subfamilies. In a 

 short paper recently printed in the ' Journal of Entomology ' (vol. i. 

 No. 5), Mr. Walker has described two now genera ; one of thorn, 

 Tlwssitus, is said to be " allied to " the genus Elidiptera : this is 

 certainly a mistake ; the genus has not any relation whatever to 

 Elidiptera — not even to any of the genera which Mr. Walker has con- 

 founded ivith that genus in the Museum Catalogue. One other 

 genus of that paper," Dechitus, is said to be " allied to "OCotrades, 

 and also to Serida, genera founded by Mr. Walker himself; but, 

 again, this equally is utterly a misconception, these two genera 

 belonging most apparently, by every character of the insects, to 

 different subfamilies, and neither of them to the same subfamily as 

 Dechitus ! The nothing-saying, meaningless characters given by 

 Mr. Walker of these two genera are such as will not enable any 

 entomologist to determine them without the aid of the figures of Mr. 

 Robinson : these at once show us that these two genera are nearly 

 allied to, or, if you please, identical with, the gcnufEurybrachys, one 

 of the most striking forms amongst insects ! Several of the species 

 described by Mr. Walker under the generic name Elidiptera belong 

 toi Flatoides of Gucrin : certainly in the Catalogue of Homopterous 

 Insects in the Collection of the British Museum there will bo found 

 a great number of species placed in the genus Flatoides, but not one 

 truly belonging to that genus ! — the sp *s must be placed in other 

 distinct genera, belonging to different grovfr- < J the family Fulgorina ! 



In the British Museum Collection are three e.-amales of an 

 Australian' Aphrophora, very striking in form am] co Wation : one 

 of them is described with doubt as a new species of C, 7f Ufoptera, a 

 genus truly belonging to the family Cercopina, but pla »3& by Mr. 

 Walker amongst the Jassina ; the second specimen he describes, 

 also with doubt, as a new species, but places it in the genus Aphro- 

 phora ; when for the third specimen he fabricates a third new species, 

 he seems to be sure that it belongs to the well-known geniis Aphro- 

 phora — at least there is no sign of doubt given after the gi 

 name. It is wonderful to say, that these three examples are the 

 same identical species one ivith the other. 



A very great number of species are described as belonging r,o the 

 genus Ledra, a very curious and distinct genus in habit and, r;ha- 

 racters: on examining the species placed in that genus \p Ihe 

 Museum Collection, it will at once be seen that the greater nun 

 of species placed there belong not only to other genera, but toga 

 belonging to some other, and, from the situation of the ocelli, 

 striking groups of the family Jassina. Of the species belonging ti uJ\ 



