18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



described or catalogued ; but their diversity was hardly fully recog- 

 nized when in the following year I published my Materials for a 

 Monograph of the North American Orthoptera (Bost. Journ, Nat. 

 Hist., VII.), where eighteen species and five genera were characterized 

 or indicated ; since then a few more species have been described, by 

 Thomas, Brunner, Bruner, Packard, Walker, Blatchley, and myself, 

 until now the number of nominal species is twenty-eight, which must, 

 however, be reduced by synonymy and by reference to other genera to 

 twenty. 



In 1888, Brunner, in his Monographic der Stenopelmatiden und 

 Gyllacriden (Verb. Zool.-bot. Gesellsch. Wien), subjected all the spe- 

 cies known to him to systematic treatment ; but as the larger part of 

 our species and some of our genera were unknown to him, and the 

 number of separately described species has multiplied so greatly while 

 still not including, at least in Ceuthophilus, the half of our species, it 

 has seemed desirable to undertake a revision of the group, so far as 

 our native species are concerned, and in the genus Ceuthophilus to 

 redescribe all the older forms, as well as to publish the novelties. 

 Accordingly in the present paper thirty-eight additional species of 

 the group are characterized, together with a new genus, while I shall 

 further show the validity of Daihinia of Haldeman, which has been 

 called in question by Brunner, and shall point out first that one of the 

 genera thought to belong here should be separated as a member of a 

 distinct group. The total number of genera from North America is 

 therefore six, and of the species sixty-seven, while a number of other 

 species are known to me imperfectly by a single sex or poor examples. 



TROPIDISCHIA ScuDDER. 



TropidiscMa Scudd., Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist., vii. 440-441 (1862). 



In his Monograph of the Stenopelmatidse, Brunner von Wattenwyl, 

 from the insufficient data given in my two statements regarding the 

 structure of this creature, incorrectly surmised that this genus should 

 be placed in the Ceuthophili, and was perhaps congeneric with Hetero- 

 mallus, a Chilian genus. Since, however, the hind tibiae are supplied 

 above with spines of one grade only, it is plainly more nearly related 

 to the Dolichopodae, from which it may be distinguished by the simi- 

 larly spined margins of the under surface. It seems to form a group 

 apart, between the Dolichopoda3 and Ceuthophili, and of equivalent 

 value. It appears to come nearer Hadenoecus and Dolichopoda than 

 to any other described genera. 



