44 
Psyche 
[Sept-Dec. 
an entire, unbroken corial margin without trace of cuneus, and 
a large, uncleft seventh abdominal sternite in the female with- 
out trace of an ovipositor. It runs directly to the Microphysid- 
Anthocorid couplet in China and Myers’ key (1929) but does 
not fit either of these. All of the alternative characters given in 
this couplet are variable except the one concerning the symmetry 
of the male genitalia. Electrocoris fits the Microphysidae in this 
critical character but agrees with the Anthocoridae in all of the 
supplementary characters given. 
Pachymerus senius Germar and Berendt (1856) may pertain 
to Electrocoris as indicated by the introductory paragraph of 
the original description. “Dies kleine, wenig fiber eine Linie 
lange Thierchen, erscheint in der Gestalt des Kopfes, des Hals- 
schildes und der Ffihler fast wie ein Capsus, und hat besonders 
mit Capsus capillaris im Umriss Aehnlichkeit, aber die deut- 
lichen Nebenaugen zeigen, dass es in die Familie der Lygaeoden 
gehort.” It is perfectly true that relationship with the Lygaeidae 
is indicated, not only by the presence of ocelli, but also by the 
absence of a cuneus and the presence of four free longitudinal 
veins in the membrane. However, the Lygaeidae differ funda- 
mentally from the Cimicoidea in general in the possession of 
abdominal trichobothria and well developed arolia of an en- 
tirely different type from the arolia seen occasionally in the 
Cimicoidea. That Electrocoris has no abdominal trichobothria 
is indicated by several specimens in which the finest abdominal 
hairs are clearly visible. Lygaeidae likewise differ from Electro- 
coris in possessing a distinctly four-segmented, ventrally ap- 
pressed rostrum, well developed bucculae, more distinct and 
differently formed ostiolar canals, and a deeply cleft seventh 
female sternite which usually accommodates a well developed 
ovipositor. 
There is also a possibility that the much discussed but little 
understood genus Joppeicus may be related to Electrocoris . 
Originally described as an Aradid by Puton (1881), Joppeicus 
paradoxus was later moved to the Lygaeid subfamily Oxycareni- 
nae by Bergroth (1898), and thence, as a separate family, 
Joppeicidae, back to the Aradoideae (Reuter, 1910). Mr. China 
(1933) reexamined the species and again moved it to the Ly- 
gaeoidea, this time as a separate family related to the Clerada 
group of Lygaeids. I have never seen Joppeicus but, from a 
review of the literature including Bergevin (1911), its most 
