MORGAN IIEBARD 
109 
Psalis americana ' Beauvois) 
1S17. Forjictdn americana Beavivois, Ins. Hec. Afr. Ainer., p. 1G5, Oith., pi- 
XIV, fig. 1. [San Domingo.] 
El Tain]) 0 , Inteiidencia del ('lioco, IV, 5, 1918, (AI. A. Carri- 
ker, Jr.). 1 cf , 1 large juv. cf , 1 niediuni juv. 
The adult liefore us agrees fully with Panamanian individuals 
of this s])ecies which we have recorded, of the large winged tj^pe; 
showing over half of the tegmina occupied by a liroad transverse 
orange band. 
Spandex rosenbergi (Burr) 
1.S99. Pmlis rosenbergi Burr, Ann. Mag. Xat. Hist., (7). iv, p. 2.53. [cf , 9 ! 
Parainba, Chimbo and Cachabe, Ecuador.] 
El Tamlio, Intendencia del C'hoco, I\’, o, 1918, (AI. A. (\irriker> 
Jr.), 1 cf. 
Burr’s generic assignment of this species is, in our opinion, 
fully warranted. One of the most distinctive features of Spandex 
has, however, never been noted. This character, is that in the 
male sultgenital plate a small liut sharp emargination occurs 
mesad on the distal margin, a very small agglutinated tuft of 
hairs on each side springing from poorly defined sockets on the 
aiiices of the lateral portions thus formed. Hasty examination of 
this feature would cause one to suppose that reduced styles 
were present. In' no other genus of American Dermaptera is an 
analogous development found. 
Burr has chosen Psalis pulchra Rehn as genotype of Spandex.- 
Xo reason is given for resurrecting this name, which we find to 
be a synonym of ForficuJa percheron (Cluerin and Percheron), 
as had lieen previously indicated by Burr. The genotype of 
Spandex is, in consequence, percheron. 
We place rosenbergi in this genus without hesitation, to which 
haenschi (Burr) also apparently belongs. Burr’s tentative as- 
.signment of Psalis festiva Burr to Spandex we lielieve to be incor- 
rect, as material from Venezuela referable to that species, in the 
Philadelphia Collections, is properly assignalile to Psalis. The 
other species tentatively assigned to Spandex l)y Burr, P.mlis 
nigra C’audell, we do not know. 
The specimen here recorded, compared with Burr’s descrip- 
tion of rosenbergi, differs in features which appear to be due rather 
^.Journ. R. Microsc. Soc., 1915, p. 524, (1915). 
TRANS. AM. EXT. SOC., XLVII. 
