666 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Sept. 



Section Tettigiae. 

 PROTOTETTIX Bolivar. 

 1887. Prototettix Bolivar, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg., XXXI, pp. 195, 255. 

 Included P. fossulatus Bolivar, and impressus and lohulatus (Stal); 

 of which Bolivar's species may be considered the type. 



Prototettix fossulatus Bolivar. 



1887. P[rototettix] fossulatus Bolivar, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg., XXXI, p. 256. 

 [Apiahy, Sao Paulo, Brazil.] 



Lota, Chile. January, 1904. (C. S. Reed.) [A. N. S. Phila.] 

 Three males. 



These specimens fully agree with Bolivar's description, except that 

 the pagina of the caudal limbs are elevated into plicate ridges as in 

 lohulatus. From lohulatus, however, they differ in the partially hidden 

 tegmina, the sinuate ventro-caudal margins of the pronotum and the 

 more apparent median carina. As the original description was based 

 on a female these specimens are materially smaller than the measure- 

 ments given by Bolivar. 



ACRYDIUM Geoffroy. 

 1764. Acrydium Geoffroy, Hist. Abreg. Insect, I, p. 390.'' 

 Included six non-binomial species, the genus being later restricted 

 by Fabricius^ to include but two species, hipundatum and suhulatum, of 

 which two the latter may be considered the type. 



Acrydium japonioum (Bolivar). 



1887. T[ettix] japonicus Bolivar, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg., XXXI, p. 263. 

 [Japan.] 



Kyoto, Japan. (Y. Hirase, No. 41.) [A. N. S. Phila., and Hebard 

 Coll.] Twenty-nine males, eighteen females. 



This species is a close relative of A. tilrki (Krauss), and also bears a 

 superficial resemblance to the American genus Neotettix. It is, how- 

 ever, a member of the genvis Acrydium in the restricted sense. 



PARATETTIX Bolivar. 

 1887. ParateUix Bolivar, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg., XXXI, pp. 195, 270. 



Included twenty-eight species, of which peruvianus and cayennensis 

 have been removed to Allotettix, schochii made the type of Clypeotettix, 

 and fallax and aztecus placed in Telmatettix. Of the remaining species 

 the only European one can be considered the type, meridionalis Ram- 

 bur. 



^ The edition of 1762 is not available for examination, but that of 1764 is said 

 to be identical, except for a few minor details. 

 ' Syst. Ent., pp. 278, 1775. 



