18 STUDIES IN AMERICAN TETTIGONIIDAE (oRTHOPTERA) 



judge what nitidum and spinulosuni are. Doctor Holdhaus 

 states that, "0. nitidum and s-pinulosum differ externally only 

 by the characters stated by Redtenbacher and may possibly 

 prove forms of the same species." This is quite true, and the 

 characters given by Redtenbacher are valueless in this genus 

 while the size differences are due to locality as we show beyond. 

 Both of these names equal the much older agile (DeGeer). The 

 great difficulty encountered with the Redtenbacherian species 

 concerns the other species, robustum and laticauda, the first of 

 which, as discussed beyond, in all probability equals nigripes 

 with abnormal or unassociated leg or legs. It is based on a 

 unique female which in every feature of the description but the 

 caudal limbs is typical nigripes. The other species, laticauda, 

 appears to us to be the same as Davis's pulchellimi, the author of 

 which has gone over the description with us and agrees that it 

 probably represents the same form. It was our intention to 

 have material carefully compared in Vienna, particularly with 

 regard to the important genital characters, but the unfortunate 

 conflict now raging has made this impossible. 



The present authors at one time very doubtfully determined as 

 0. cuticulare Serville^ a single male from Thomasville, Georgia. 

 The specimen is not cuticulare as we now know it { = glaberrimum) , 

 but instead is an aberrant individual of 0. minor. 



Relation of the Genus. — Redtenbacher ^ considered Orchelimum 

 but a subgenus of "Xiphidiu7n," as the supposedly diagnostic 

 features given by previous authors, i. e. the spined prosternum 

 and the curved ovipositor were found by him to be present in 

 "Xiphidium." Karny in his several papers on the group has al- 

 lowed Orchelimum to retain generic rank and divided Conoce- 

 phalus {Xiphidium of authors) into a number of subgenera. The 

 latter author's position seems to us the most logical, but the char- 

 acters separating the two genera are largely ones of degree and in 

 consequence hard to express. It is necessary, as well, to divide 

 Orchelimum into three subgenera, this being done below. As we 

 will show in a future treatment of the genus Conocephalus, the 

 characters separating the subgenera of that genus are as impor- 

 tant as the characters separating Orchelimum s. s. from several of 

 the subgenera of Conocephalus, but we find other groups which 



' Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1904, p. 796, (1905). 



8 Verb. k.-k. zool.-botan. Gesell. Wien, xli, p. 494, (1891). 



