184 ON SOME REGENTLY DESGRIBED HEMIPTERA, GIÎIEELY FROM INDIA By E. IS<'r;;i'olh. Coreidae. — In liis Fauna of Jiritisli liulia, Rhyucli. IJel. V, p. 11, Distant describes a new geiius aiui species uiider the name Consivius colliniis, plac'ing il in tiie taniily Lyg.Teidœ neav Arocatus. In the figure of tliis insect we meet an old friend — Corlziis hyo-scyanii L. of the fainily Coreidas, a species cominon ail over the palearctic région and also recoi'ded from Persia and China. With this insect the .desci'iption — as far as it goes — also enlirely agrées If Mr. Distant will conipare the type with his English spé-cimens of C. liyoscyami I think he will be satisfied as to their iden-tity, although the coloar of the species is somewhat variable. The characterislic protriuling hind angles of the metasternum and the numerous veins of the membrane are well portrayed by Mr. Dis-tant's artisl. Mr. Distant does not seem to be aware of the tact that no Lyga^id bas more than five veins to the membrane. In the Bio-logia Centr. Americana Distant has recorded and figured two species of the common and universally distribuled Lygeeid geniis Nysius as belonging to the Coreid genus Bhopalus Schill. {Corizus Auctt.), His way of dealing with the genns Corizus Fall. (Tlieraplia Am. S.)' is not mach of an improvement. As Corizus is one of the most typical and most easily recognized in the Hemiptera and familiar to every tyro in Hemipterology, the failure of a sludent of Hemiptera since over tiiirty years to recognize itcan only be explai-ned in one way. With his habituai, now almost proverbial rejiu-gnance to structural characters Mr. Distant has only had an eye for the brighl colour of Corizus, rcmindiug of certain LygToidœ, and this was suffîcient reason to hini to place it Ihere, and as it naturally did not fit the description of any Lygœid,the « new genus » was ready ! Myodochidae (Lyga?ida'). — In tlie Records of the Indian Muséum V, p. 313, Distant describes a « new genus and species » Abgarus lypicas froin Bornéo and gives two ligures of it, one taken from above, the olhei-from the side. It is said lo diiferfrom Actha-lotus StAl (( l>y the produced neck behind the ocelli ». From the prolile figure it is clear that this « genus » is founded on an Actha-iotus inwhich the head had by accident been delached from Ihe body and then glued on to the thoi-ax in sijch a way that the neck, nor-mally enclosed in the prolhorax, barely touches the upper apica' margin of it; hence the « produced neck behind the ocelli ». The « genus » is a mère artefact.
BioStor
