54 STUDIES IN AMERICAN TETTIGONIIDAE (oRTHOPTERa) 



has gone over the ground with us and agrees that the description 

 fits hirge Florida specimens, which are specifically identical with 

 his New Jersey material. Through the kindness ot the same 

 gentleman we have before us eight of his typical New Jersey 

 specimens of pulcheUum for comparison. 



Redtenbacher has given as one of the main characters of this 

 species the presence of spines on the ventro-internal margin of 

 the caudal femora. This we find occurs in but few specimens, 

 the vast majority having the internal margin unarmed. The 

 number of spines on the ventro-external margin varies from two 

 to eight. 



Davis was correct in giving nigripes as the closest relative of 

 this species, the present authors' comment on this point^'' being 

 due to a misconception of nigripes. 



The average size of specimens from the northern portion of the 

 range of the species is distinctly under that of individuals from 

 the southern states, but this is by no means an absolute rule, as 

 series show very considerable individual variation, which almost 

 or quite equals the geographic averages. Female specimens from 

 Tinicum, Pennsylvania, and Florence, South Carohna, show the 

 following extremes in size (measurements in millimeters). 



Tinicum, Florence, 



Pennsylvania South Carolina 



Length of body (exclusive of ovipositor) 18.3 22.8 .20 20 



Length of pronotum 4.2 5.3 5 5.7 



Length of tegmen 18.7 28.3 21.9 26.3 



Length of caudal femiu- 15.3 19.2 18.3 19.2 



Length of ovipositor 9 10.7 10.3 11.2 



The intensity of the coloration and the brilliancy of certain 

 shades varies considerably in the series before us. 



Distribution. — Covering the Atlantic Coastal Plain region 

 from north central New Jersey (Helmetta, Spotswood and James- 

 burg) south to southern Florida, westward to New Orleans, 

 Louisiana; in the eastern states occurring at suitable valley 



(Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1904, p. 796 (Part); Ibid., 1905, p. 48 and Ibid., 

 1907, p. 306). The first misidentification was due to the fact that true nigripes 

 was not at hand for examination, and the second was due fu-st to the confusion 

 of two species and later, when this was found to be the case, error was made 

 in restricting nitidum to the wrong component. The present species has also 

 been erroneously recorded as nigripes by Smith, Brimlcy and AUard. 

 " Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1910, p. 642, (1911). 



