1913.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 417 



northward from the centre of its distribution, but that occasional 

 series of unusually small size are sometimes found in the central 

 portion of its range. These smaller series would seem at first glance 

 to belong to a different species, but close examination fails to disclose 

 valid characters of any sort, which is also true of the occasional light 

 colored specimens which have from time to time been referred to 

 canus. 



Synonymy. — The synonymy of the present species is much involved 

 owing to the fact that it is one of the oldest recognized species of 

 North American Orthoptera as well as one of the most abundant and 

 variable over the greater portion of its range. 



In 1775, Fabricius described Acheta hospes from America, this 

 being a synonym based on the macropterous form oi fasciatus. 



Harris^°, in 1841, described the brach3^pterous form of the present 

 species as Acheta vittata, which name since that time has been exten- 

 sively used to designate the brachypterous form of the insect. 



Scudder, in 1862, most unfortunately recorded macropterous 

 specimens of the present species as N(emobius) exiguus, confusing 

 Say's Acheta exigua with fasciatus, which former species belongs to 

 the genus Anaxipha. This mistake was repeated by Glover in 1872, 

 and the introduction of that name in the nomenclature of the genus 

 Nemohius resulted in the greatest confusion in the work of many 

 subsequent authors. 



In 1896, Scudder described Nemohius utahensis, the type of which'''' 

 cannot be distinguished from the brachypterous form of fasciatus, 

 while since that time specimens of the present species have been 

 referred by various authors to Nemohius utahensis, canu^-, maculatus, 

 ■cubensis, palustris, and carolinusP 



Specimens Examined}^ — 641: 273 males, 353 females, and 15 

 nymphs. 



^° In 1835 Harris included in his list of Massachusetts insects Say's manuscript 

 name Acheta servilis based on the macropterous form of fasciatus, but, as there 

 was no accompanying description, that name falls as a nomen nudum. 



^1 We here select as single type a female specimen, taken at Spring Lake, Utah, 

 in July, 1875, and now in the United States National Museum. 



^2 See discussion of this name under the Synonymy of Nemohius fasciatus 

 socius. 



^^ The only other name probably applicable to the present species is Nemohius 

 marginata of Murtfeldt, published in 1893 without description, hence a nomen 

 nudum. 



^' The following abbreviations are used to differentiate the specimens here 

 recorded: Lg., large size; med., medium size; sm., small size; b., brachyp- 

 terous; m., macropterous; pi., pale in coloration; dk., dark in coloration; br., 

 brilliantly colored; maj., majority of specimens; v., very; n., nymph. 



