THYSANOPTERA FROM HUNGARY. 
373 
4. Zygothrips minutus Uzel 1895 (Pl. XII. fig. 10—12). 
There is a single mutilated female in the collection taken by 
Mr. Biró at Izsák, May 21st 1904, with M. lativentris («in arenosis»). 
Although the specimen is a large one (1*3 mm.) and has the antenna? 
and the fore and intermediate legs broken off there can be little doubt 
as to its indentity. The wings are very clear and have the cilia rather 
widely separated and more than usually long. 
5. Hindsiana flavicincta Earn y (Pl. XII. fig. 7—9). 
Hindsiana flavicincta, Karny, Mitteilungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen 
Vereines an der Universität Wien, VIII. Nr. 2, p. 11—12, tab. V, fig. 16—17. (1910). 
Forma brachyptera. The coloration of this pretty little insect is 
distinctive. The head, first two joints and the tip of the antennæ are 
light brown whilst the rest of the antennæ, all the legs and the thorax 
(excepting for a slight brownish tinge in the mesothorax) are light 
lemon-yellow. 
The species is long and linear and has heavy hypodermal pigment¬ 
ation in a line down each side of the abdomen remote from the edges 
and stretching lightly across some of the segments. 
It measures 1*5 mm. in length and is 0*22 mm. wide across the 
mesothorax. Though the wings are reduced there ■ are two pairs of 
strong wing-retaining spines on each of the abdominal segments three 
to seven. The genus so far as I understand is closely approximate to 
the genera Anthothrips, Cephalothrips and Zygothrips. In fact I had set 
apart the single example herein recorded as a new species of Cephalo¬ 
thrips some time before Mr. Karny published his paper, and I am not 
at all satisfied that the species possesses characters of generic value. 
I feel that as yet the limitations of certain European genera in this 
sub-order are very imperfectly understood, and, whilst acknowledging 
the necessity of subdividing certain unwieldy Terebrantian genera such as 
Euthrips and Thrips I feel that it would be a pity to regard as distinct 
though closely allied genera, several allied species that might more 
conveniently and more satisfactorily be grouped in one or two larger 
genera. 
As regards the present species, whilst not acknowledging its generic 
distinctness at the moment, I can only admit that I have seen but a 
single poorly preserved specimen whereas Karny has had the oppor¬ 
tunity of studying examples of both the macropterous and brachypte- 
rous forms. 
