GRASSHOPPERS OF THE CONALCAEA COMPLEX— GURNEY 297 



Conalcaea humphreysii poecila Hebard, Ball, Tinkham, Flock, and Vorhies, 

 Arixona Agr. Exp. Stat. Techn. Bull. 93, pp. 329-330, 1942 (in part). 



Male. — Essentially like cochisei except in key characters noted ; 

 averaging more robust. Cercus (fig. 64, j) with ventroapical angle 

 averaging more acute than in cochisei but not sufficiently different 

 to serve as a separating character ; f urcula, supra-anal plate and 

 subgenital plate about as in cochisei; ventral valves of aedeagus 

 with apices widely separated and incurved (fig. 64, d). 



Coloration: Pattern as in cochisei, but general tone brownish 

 rather than greenish olivaceous ; hind tibia usually yellowish buff 

 but occasionally bright red ; abdomen usually pale brown, averag- 

 ing lighter than in cochise and with scarcely any pinkish tinge 

 on external genitalia. 



Measurements (length in millimeters) of representative speci- 

 men : Body, 27 ; pronotum, 6.1 ; front femur, 4.8 ; hind femur, 14.5 ; 

 tegmen, 4.2. 



FeTTiale. — General form as in plate 11, figure 1, not separable 

 with certainty from cochisei except by association with male; 

 tegmen variable, usually narrower at base than in figure 58, a; 

 dorsal valve of ovipositor decidedly upturned at apex (fig. 58, k) ; 

 cercus blunt to moderately acute. 



Coloration: As in male. 



Measurements (length in millimeters) of representative speci- 

 men : Body, 31 ; pronotum, 6.6 ; front femur, 4.7 ; hind femur, 16.5 ; 

 tegmen, 5.7. 



Males examined vary in pronotal length from 4.8 mm. (Santa 

 Rita Mountains) to 7:5 mm. (Baboquivari Mountains), and from 

 21.5 to 32 mm. in body length. Females vary in pronotal length 

 from 5.7 mm. (Huachuca Mountains) to 8.3 mm. (A jo Moun- 

 tains), and from 19.5 to 36 mm. in body length. 



The only dependable character I have found for separating 

 humphreysii from cochisei is the aedeagus, although freshly col- 

 lected or well-preserved specimens of cochisei are usually more 

 greenish olivaceous than humphreysii, and there is more red on 

 the hind legs and external genitalia. Ball et al. (1942) and Tink- 

 ham (1947) probably did not study the aedeagus, and certain 

 specimens with considerable red were referred to poecila, as dem- 

 onstrated by material of humphreysii here recorded from the Ajo 

 Mountains, which was sent to me by Dr. Tinkham as representa- 

 tive of humphreysii poecila. It is now known that those authors 

 were quite correct in realizing that a form related to typical hum- 

 phreysii occurs in southern Arizona and Sonora, and without 

 studying the aedeagus it was natural to assume that the additional 

 form might be a subspecies of humphreysii. My examination of 

 the type of poecila shows that the identification was incorrect. 



