﻿akt. 
  1 
  AMERICAN 
  PLOIARIINAE 
  McATEE 
  AND 
  MALLOCH 
  49 
  

  

  Ploiariopsis 
  Champion, 
  G. 
  C. 
  Biologia 
  Centrali-Americana. 
  Insecta. 
  

   Rhynchota. 
  Heniiptera-Heteroptera, 
  vol. 
  2, 
  p. 
  178, 
  Oct. 
  1898. 
  [Included 
  

   species, 
  both 
  new: 
  P. 
  megalops, 
  Panama; 
  and 
  P. 
  praerfotor, 
  Guatemala, 
  of 
  

   which 
  the 
  former 
  was 
  subsequently 
  designated 
  as 
  type 
  by 
  Van 
  Duzee, 
  Cat. 
  

   Hemip. 
  1917, 
  p. 
  235.] 
  

  

  Emendation 
  : 
  Ploearia. 
  

  

  This 
  genus 
  shows 
  in 
  the 
  structure 
  of 
  the 
  fore 
  tarsi 
  an 
  approach 
  

   to 
  the 
  form 
  of 
  those 
  of 
  Barce, 
  but 
  in 
  the 
  armature 
  of 
  the 
  fore 
  femora 
  

   there 
  is 
  a 
  stronger 
  resemblance 
  to 
  Emesa 
  and 
  its 
  allies. 
  In 
  the 
  

   winged 
  forms 
  of 
  this 
  genus 
  the 
  pronotum 
  does 
  not 
  extend 
  over 
  

   dorsum 
  of 
  mesonotum 
  except 
  at 
  the 
  extreme 
  anterior 
  margin. 
  The 
  

   venation 
  of 
  the 
  forewing 
  is 
  characteristic 
  and 
  in 
  the 
  hind 
  wing 
  

   there 
  is 
  immediately 
  beyond 
  the 
  cross-vein 
  a 
  distinct 
  thickening 
  of 
  

   the 
  membrane 
  and 
  a 
  slightly 
  denser 
  appearance 
  similar 
  to 
  that 
  

   of 
  the 
  costa 
  extending 
  almost 
  across 
  the 
  field 
  of 
  the 
  wing 
  which 
  is 
  

   not 
  found 
  in 
  any 
  other 
  genus 
  in 
  the 
  subfamily 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  we 
  know. 
  

   The 
  latter 
  character 
  is 
  shown 
  in 
  figure 
  83. 
  That 
  we 
  have 
  here 
  a 
  

   group 
  of 
  closely 
  allied 
  species 
  well 
  regarded 
  as 
  belonging 
  to 
  a 
  single 
  

   genus 
  is 
  evident 
  from 
  the 
  intergradation 
  observable 
  in 
  what 
  have 
  

   been 
  considered 
  diagnostic 
  characters. 
  This 
  is 
  true 
  not 
  only 
  of 
  the 
  

   armature 
  of 
  the 
  fore 
  legs, 
  but 
  also 
  of 
  the 
  spines 
  on 
  the 
  posterior 
  lobe 
  

   of 
  the 
  head. 
  As 
  for 
  the 
  presence 
  or 
  absence 
  of 
  hairs 
  on 
  the 
  antennae 
  

   it 
  may 
  be 
  said 
  that 
  in 
  this 
  and 
  some 
  other 
  genera 
  the 
  degree 
  of 
  devel- 
  

   opment 
  of 
  these 
  is 
  a 
  sexual 
  character. 
  If 
  minor 
  differences 
  in 
  the 
  

   armature 
  of 
  the 
  fore-legs 
  and 
  other 
  characters 
  of 
  like 
  importance 
  

   are 
  seized 
  upon 
  as 
  justifying 
  the 
  recognition 
  of 
  additional 
  genera, 
  

   there 
  will 
  be 
  almost 
  no 
  end 
  to 
  the 
  process 
  in 
  a 
  subfamily 
  so 
  rich 
  in 
  

   structural 
  differences 
  as 
  the 
  Ploiariinae. 
  

  

  To 
  illustrate 
  what 
  would 
  happen 
  in 
  the 
  present 
  genus 
  if 
  Ploiaria 
  

   and 
  Luteva 
  were 
  recognized 
  as 
  genera 
  and 
  the 
  process 
  carried 
  to 
  its 
  

   logical 
  end, 
  Ploiaria 
  would 
  consist 
  only 
  of 
  domestica 
  and 
  its 
  closest 
  

   allies 
  ; 
  the 
  species 
  with 
  two-spined 
  trochanters 
  would 
  form 
  a 
  different 
  

   genus 
  ; 
  Luteva 
  could 
  not 
  include 
  a 
  species 
  with 
  like 
  femoral 
  armature 
  

   but 
  with 
  spined 
  trochanter 
  like 
  setulifera 
  here 
  described; 
  Cerascopus 
  

   would 
  be 
  resurrected, 
  and 
  various 
  segregates 
  of 
  one 
  or 
  a 
  few 
  7 
  species 
  

   could 
  be 
  made 
  on 
  equally 
  valid 
  grounds. 
  Generic 
  importance 
  has 
  

   been 
  claimed 
  for 
  a 
  character, 
  absence 
  or 
  presence 
  of 
  wings, 
  which 
  is 
  

   not 
  even 
  of 
  specific 
  value 
  in 
  this 
  group. 
  Recognizing 
  an 
  excessive 
  

   number 
  of 
  genera 
  makes 
  it 
  difficult 
  to 
  construct 
  and 
  to 
  use 
  the 
  generic 
  

   key. 
  When 
  the 
  genera 
  approach 
  the 
  one-species 
  standard 
  the 
  generic 
  

   key 
  becomes 
  as 
  difficult 
  to 
  use 
  as 
  an 
  unusually 
  long 
  specific 
  key: 
  Is 
  it 
  

   not 
  better 
  to 
  divide 
  the 
  burden 
  between 
  them 
  ? 
  This 
  can 
  be 
  done 
  only 
  

   by 
  the 
  recognition 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  practicable 
  of 
  genera 
  which 
  comprehend 
  

   more 
  species 
  than 
  the 
  mere 
  variants 
  of 
  a 
  single 
  specific 
  type. 
  If 
  one 
  

   gets 
  off 
  the 
  track 
  in 
  a 
  complicated 
  generic 
  key, 
  he 
  may 
  soon 
  go 
  far 
  

  

  