MORGAN HEBARD 213 



In 1908, Shclford, without comment, placed Attaphihi last of 

 the genera of the Phyllodromiinae^^^ ( = Pseudomopinae). Though 

 monographic studies may pro\'e the Attaphilinae a valid sub- 

 family, we feel that the wisest present course is to assign the genus 

 to the Corydiinae, the numerous hairs on the exposed surfaces of 

 the body, evenly convex head, without ocelli, in both sexes, and 

 the ventral femoral margins armed only distad, except the cephalic 

 margins of the caudal femora, leading us to this conclusion. The 

 apparently distinctive antennal characters found, very possibly, 

 may be merely representative of the high specialization of a more 

 common type to exceptional environmental conditions. 



Genotype by monot^^py: Attaphila fungicola Wheeler. 



Generic Description ?'^- — Size minute, form elliptical. Exposed 

 surface clothed with scattered hairs. Head very broad, ocelli and 

 ocellar areas obsolete. Eyes greatly reduced. Antennae with all 

 but second and third joints decidedly longer than wide. Pronotum 

 evenly convex, with caudal margin transverse. Tegmina: de- 

 cidedly reduced with venation obsolete, or absent in male; absent 

 in female. Wings: vestigial pads or absent in male; absent in 

 female. Dorsal abdominal segments unmodified in both sexes. 

 Limbs stout, tarsal joints very short, without pulvilli. Cephalic 

 femora with margins unarmed, except for a few distal hairs on the 

 ventro-cephalic margin, terminated by a single, small, delicate 

 spine. Median and caudal femora each with a heavy and very 

 elongate genicular spine. X'cntral margins of same supplied with 

 a few hairs, except cephalic margin of caudal femora, which is 

 supplied with several stout spines. Proportionately very large 

 arolia present, completely filling the area between the exceedingly 

 delicate tarsal claws. 



^^' Gen. Ins., Fasc. 73, Orlh., Blattidae, Phyllodroniiinac, p. 23. 



^^2 The genus and species are described together by Wheeler. We give the following 

 characters found in the type species (excepting those qualifying tegminal and wing 

 development), which appear worth\- of generic rank. Without being able to examine 

 Bolivar's species, we can not state whether these are all attributable to Attaphila as 

 restricted in the diagnosis giv^en above. Bolivar fails to state definitely the spine for- 

 mulae of the limbs. In his generic description he gives " Femures con espina apical 

 superiormentc . . . :" certainly in part an incorrect statement, as in none of the 

 roaches we have seen arc the cephalic femora furnished with a tlorso-distal genicular spine. 



MEM. AM. ENT. SOC, 2. 



