52 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Feb., 



Melanesian and Australian, including his new genus Parhierodula 

 and its allies. 



It is the last two categories with which we have particularly to 

 deal and, from the material before us, we feel fully justified in re- 

 pudiating the arrangement made by Giglio-Tos. 



The insurmountable difficulty in that author's argument lies in 

 the fact that, were we to accept the character of smoothness or 

 serration of the costal margins of the tegmina as primarily impor- 

 tant, we would give this feature far more weight than is its due. 

 We consider this feature of probably a physiologic application and 

 by no means as important for generic separation as the great pro- 

 notal . expansion found in the forms which, in the past, were all 

 assigned to Rhombodera. This different pronotal expansion is clearly 

 a somatic character. It is found in the immature stages. The 

 tegminal features are found in the adult condition only and for that 

 reason we feel obliged to consider them of secondary value.''^ 



We therefore place Parhierodula Giglio-Tos under Hierodula 

 Burmeister, and Rhomhoderula^° Giglio-Tos, described as a subgenus 

 of Parhierodula, under Rhofubodera Burmeister. These two units 

 as recognized by Giglio-Tos, Parhierodula and Rhomboderula, may 

 not even stand as subgenera, based only on the different character 

 of the costal margins of the tegmina. 



Using the same argument, when we consider the African species 

 of the Hierodulse, we find that Giglio-Tos' subgenus Rhomboderella, 

 of the genus Sphodromantis Stal, represents a valid generic unit. 



Though the relative values of the character of the tegminal mar- 

 gins or the pronotal development afford full justification for such 

 action, the material at hand shows further necessity for the present 

 adjustment. Several species before us, some with costal margins 

 of the tegmina smooth, others with these margins serrulate, unques- 

 tionably belong not only to the same genus, but also to the same 

 species group within the genus. The general facies and sum total 

 of characters in these is much too close to be ascribable to converg- 

 ence in two different genera, as Giglio-Tos, using his classification, 

 would be forced to assume. Thus Hierodula laevicollis Saussure 

 and Hierodula sorongana (Giglio-Tos) are species of close affinity, 



^* Indeed Giglio-Tos himself evidently was obliged at times to switch to this 

 point of view, for otherwise he would have no grounds for erecting the related 

 genus Pnigomanlis. 



^^ We here select Rhomboderula [Rhomhodera] saussurei (Kirby) as genotype 

 of Rhomboderula Giglio-Tos. For a discussion of the species which Giglio-Tos 

 assigned to his Rhomboderula, see page 00. 



