36 Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society Vol. XVI 



baum 1868, as a synonym. This is probably the best determina- 

 tion we have for the species so far, except that Athysanus is con- 

 sidered a subgenus of Euscelis. 



Van Duzee in Transactions of the San Diego Society of 

 Natural History (Vol. II, No. i, November, 1914) reports Eu~ 

 tettix osborni as occurring in great numbers on Tamarix at La 

 Jolla and a few from Alpine, on the same plant, both localities 

 San Diego County, California. 



Gibson and Cogan in the Ohio Journal of Science (Vol. XVI, 

 No. 2, December, 1915), extend its distribution in this country 

 by reporting it from Missouri; they incidentally hint at a new 

 food-plant, "White Aster, used in ornamental planting." It 

 would be exceedingly interesting to know if the insects lived and 

 thrived on this plant or if they were only casual visitors from a 

 nearby Tamarix, as both plants are extensively used in orna- 

 mental planting. 



Van Duzee in " Check List of the Hemiptera of America, North 

 of Mexico" (New York Ent. Soc, 1916), and same author in 

 " Catalogue of the Hemiptera of America, North of Mexico " 

 (University of California Technical Bulletins, Entomology, Vol. 

 II, November 30, 1917), lists it as Number 2174, Eutettix osborni 

 Ball. 



Thus we have a chronological review of its taxonomy or as 

 much of the literature as I have been able to consult. As it will 

 be seen by the above, it has been shifted to and fro, and de- 

 scribed in various genera, and in one case a genus was erected 

 for it which was subsequently withdrawn, and the species put 

 in an old and well-known genus, but why has it been subject to 

 restlessness in our literature? 



This question can only be answered by saying that perhaps our 

 genera in this group are not so well understood as to decide which 

 genus it should be placed in, and where it does not belong ; or as 

 Lathrop defines the genus Euscelis, " A heterogeneous aggrega- 

 tion, rendering difficult a concise description." It will thus more 

 readily receive species which do not fit in other, nearby genera. 

 This is sure to make a very interesting study, not only for this 

 species, but also for some of the closely allied species. If placed 

 in genus Athysanus or, as we now call it, Euscelis, there certainly 



