THE ORTHOPTERA OF IBERIA. 181 



The Orthoptera of Iberia. '^ 



By MALCOLM BURR, F.Z.S, F.L.S., F.E.S. 



Bolivar's work has been appearing at intervals since July 1897, f 

 in the Ainiaes dc Sciencias Xatiirais dr I'nrtn. As its title implies, it 

 is a complete synoptical catalogue of the Orthoptera of the Iberian 

 fauna ; fnll diagnostic tables are given, but not detailed descriptions 

 of the species, except in the case of novelties, of which several are 

 described. The author divides Orthoptera into three main groups, 

 Dermaptt'fct, DicUjoptera, and Euorthofttera. Probably everybody will 

 agree with the separation of the earwigs, which form certainly a 

 separate order, and are only classed with the Orthoptera at the present 

 day for convenience sake, but the separation of the Matttodca and 

 Pliaatiiatodca will cause criticism. ]')olivar unites the Maittodca with 

 the HlatUxJra in the Dirtj/optem. The points upon which he considers 

 them to be so intimately related are the depressed cordiforiu head, 

 the insertion of the front legs, the fact that m repose the elytra are 

 superimposed in the greater part of the discoidal as well as the anal 

 area, the pluriarticulate cerci, and the production of oothecse. In his 

 Fjnortlwptera the head is large and ovoid, the front legs are differently 

 inserted, the elytra in repose only cover each other in the anal area, 

 the cerci are non-articulate and true oothecif are not deposited. There 

 is a great deal of weight in these arguments, but the superficial 

 resemblance of the Maittodca and I'lianniatudfa will disincline orthop- 

 terists to readily follow liolivar's original arrangement. He further 

 places the (i ftjllodea next to the Anidiodca, beginning with 

 tTfi/llotalpa, which, as de Saussure and Zehnter have shown, possesses 

 many analogies with the Acrldiodea. Finally, I jocttstodea comes at the 

 end of his system. There is another point upon which many authors 

 will disagree with the writer, that is his adoption of subgenera' ; this 

 IS, however, a point of personal opinion. Dermaptera. — Lahidiira 

 ripaiia, Pall. var. ajfinis, Ouer., is 7^. riparia subs. Iirida,i Borm., 

 var. ini.i-ta, Bob, is probably L. riparia-riparia, or L. riparia-japimica, 

 (Haan), being two of the six subspecies into which de Bormans 

 divides Labidtira riparia, Pall. It is interesting to note Forjicida 

 Icsnei, Fin., recorded from Madrid and Galicia. Jiolivar considers 

 that in Spain it is often confused with F. puhcsccns. The name 

 Aptenpjida, Westw., is adopted at the expense of Sp/iiiii/idabis, ]')Oim. 

 BiATTODRA. — Kctohia patncfi, Steph. var. haeckdi, Bob, is apparently 

 the form ni</ripes, Steph., with which we are familiar in England. A 



* Catdlogo SinSptico de lox Ortopteros de la Faumi Iberica, par I, Bolivar, 

 Coimbra, 1900. 



t The last instalment was published in 1899, but the complete work is dated 

 1900. 



I One must ol course recognise that this is merely a matter of terms. As our 

 knowledge of the aiHnities of the insects we study becomes greater, so the necessity 

 for a terminology to express these atlinities becomes urgent. For ourselves, and 

 believing as we do that the genus should be the next highest grouping above 

 species, we should call Bolivar's subgenera, genera, whilst his genera are really 

 tribes, according to the more complicated terminology now of necessity used by the 

 leading lepidopterists. 



§ The use of the term subspecies is a much more serious matter, and it would 

 seem that Bolivar is using this term identically with the term variety = a local 

 race, whilst his term variety is synonymous with an aberration = a chance sport or 

 form of variation occurring with other forms or with the type. 



