1913.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 479 



specimens before us were taken when attracted to light at night. 

 Specimens taken on the border of woodlands and in marshlands are^ 

 as would be expected, usually pale, while those from the other situa- 

 tions mentioned are almost always dark; no other differences of any 

 kind exist between these. 



Biologicai Notes. — We find that the peculiarly developed abdomen 

 of the males of the present species acts as a sounding-board for the 

 tympanum. The tegmina fit tightly over the raised margins of the 

 concave dorsal surface of the abdomen in this sex, their apex just 

 covering and fitting closely to the distal extremity of the abdomen. 



Small, dark macropterous specimens of this species from the 

 southern United States have been recorded as N. cuhensis owing to 

 their great superficial resemblance to that species, which, however, 

 belongs to a different subgenus having very different characters. 

 Over the greater portion of the range of this species, macropterous 

 individuals are exceedingly scarce. 



Synony?ny. — In 1776, Provancher recorded the present species as 

 Nemohius exiguus. This was doubtless due to the fact that at that 

 time Scudder had not properly placed Say's Acheta exigua,^^ which 

 species is now known to belong to the genus Anaxipha, for Scudder 

 had used the name Nemohius exiguus to record specimens which he 

 realized later belonged in fact to N. fasciatus. 



In 1877, Scudder, described Nemohius volaticus, the males of which 

 are macropterous specimens of N. cuhensis, the females macropterous 

 specimens of N . carolinus, as an examination of the types clearly 

 shows. 



In October of 1877, Provancher corrected his 1876 record, using 

 Nemohius (Anaxipha) septentrionalis, as suggested by Scudder (who 

 did not realize that his own species, described the previous April as 

 Nemohius carolinus, was the same) but without describing the species ; 

 the next month, however, he described the insect under that name. 



This name was again used by Caulfield in 1887, and first placed 

 in the synonymy under the present species by E. M. Walker in 1909, 

 though Davis recognized this fact as early as 1896. 



In 1890, Smith wrongly used the name Nemohius exiguus in giving 

 Davis' correct record of Anaxipha exigua.^- 



In 1892, Blatchley used the name Nemohius exiguus, and in 1900, 

 considering it a new species, he gave under the same name a full 

 description, but, as he was unable to validate a name based originally 



" 1825. Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., IV, p. .309. 

 ^^ Am. Nat., XXII, p. 1148. 



