LIST OF NEUEOPTEBA IN BEITISH MUSEUM. 261 



closely allied, but can be separated with certainty by means of the 

 anal parts of both sexes. 



R. VARIA, p. 212, 13, belongs to the Mantispidcs, a.nd=Trichoscelia 

 varia. Walker*. I was once present in the British Museum when a 

 recently received nest of Myrapetra scutellaris, from Monte Video, 

 was opened, and saw therein numerous living examples of T. varia, 

 in all its stages. It is probable that all the species of Trichoscelia 

 have similar parasitic habits. 



TamHy HEMEEOBIIDiE. 



Grenus Maftispa, p. 213. 



M. SEMiHYALiNA, p. 214, \=M. semihyalina, Serville. I possess ex- 

 amples from Obajos on the Amazons, vrhich differ in having the dilated 

 anterior femora wholly blackish, the other legs somewhat testaceous. 



M. BRUNNEA, p. 214, 2=ilf. brunnea. Say. 



M. VARIA, p. 214, 3=M. varia, Erichs. This is very closely allied to 

 brunnea, but probably distinct ; the lower edge of the anterior darker 

 portion of the wing runs straight from base to apex, and is not carried 

 downwards to the apical portion of the dorsal margin as in brunnea. 



M. DECORATA, p, 215, 6=M. decorata, Erichs. 



M. PROL.IXA, p. 215, T=M. ?; not prolixa, Erichs. 



M. pusiLLA, p. 216, 10=M. pusilla, Pallas. The " var. " from the 

 East Indies (Ceylon) is different, and allied to Cora and rufescens. 



M. PAGANA, p. 217, 11 =M. styriaca, Poda. 



M. PERLA, p. 217, 12=M. ?; the example is of doubtful origin^ 



and, I think, distinct from perla ; the anterior femora scarcely thicker 

 than the coxae, and almost cylindrical. 



M. TENELLA, p. 218, \6=M. tenclla, Erichs. 



* Since the above was written. Prof. Westwood has published descriptions of 

 many new species of Mantispidce {vide Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. ser. 3, vol. t. 

 pp. 501-508). Among them is a species named Mantispa myrapetrella (p. 605), 

 which he says cannot possibly be the same as B. varia of Walker. Nevertheless 

 the two names are undoubtedly synonymous ; but, setting aside the vexed question 

 as to the right of insufBcient or erroneous descriptions to carry priority, it is 

 desirable that Westwood's name should be retained, as a Mantispa varia 

 previously existed. I cannot understand why Westwood should retain myra- 

 pefrella in Mantispa proper, rather than in Trichoscelia, which he still calls only 

 a subgenus. The most important structural difference in the two genera (for 

 I consider Trichoscelia undoubtedly a genus) consists in the form of the pro- 

 sternum ; and myrapetrella has. that of Trichoscelia, and not the solid stmcture 

 seen in Mantispa proper. 



LINN. PKOC, — ZOOLOGY, VOL. IX. 22 



