2 SYNOPSIS OF P1IASMID.E. 



by Stoll, and exhibits the Spectres as a distinct genus from Mantis, 

 under the name of Phasma, although without any indication from 

 whence that name was derived. In this work, Fabricius enumerates 

 only 1G species of the genus, and places the apterous before the 

 winged. 



The ' Transactions of the Linnean Society' for 1S02 contain a 

 monograph of this family by Dr. Lichtenstein, entitled " A Dis- 

 sertation on two natural Genera hitherto confounded under the 

 Name of Mantis," in which the learned author avows that the idea 

 of separating the Spectres did not originate with him, but with 

 Stoll. In common with Fabricius, he neglects a considerable num- 

 ber of Stoll's figures, and describes in all only 25 species, which he 

 arranges in the following manner : 



" Phasma. 



* Teretia. Ptdibus anticis longissimis tenuibus compressis. 



■f Altera. Elytris absque in utroque sexu nullis. 

 [Ph. filiformis, &c] 

 ft Subaptera. Elytris at alis nullis. [Ph. angula- 



tum.] 

 lit Alata. Elytris absque in utroque sexu. [Ph. 

 Gigas, &c] 

 ** Depressa. Abdomine lato, depresso; pedibus anticis bre- 

 vibus latis depressis ; thorace brevi. (Hsec aliquanto simi- 

 liora Mantibus quam antecedentia Teretia.) [Ph. Dracun- 

 culus et citrifolium.]" 

 It is singular that this paper has not been referred to by subse- 

 quent systematists, except by Latreille, in the entomological de- 

 partment of Cuvier's ' Regne Animal.' 



The profound entomologist just named, in his first great work, 

 ' Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum,' 1807, proposed to arrange 

 these insects as follows : 



" MANTIDES. 



I. Spectra. 



Genus Phasma. 

 I. Pedes femoribus tibiisque haud alatis ; illorum lateribus non 

 dilatato-membranaceis. 



adverted to, to only 18. For what reason these two authors, referring to some of 

 Stoll's figures, wholly neglected the remainder, I am at a loss to conceive. It 

 seems, however, to be a rule with some naturalists, when writing monographs or 

 general systematic works, to mention those species only which they know, by 

 ocular demonstration, to exist ; and thus many unique or very rare insects, which 

 have been described by various authors from time to time, have been omitted from 

 the general catalogues, and almost lost to science, until recovered by a fortunate 

 chance. In my Synopsis of this family I have carefully referred to all Stoll's 

 figures, and indeed, as far as my knowledge extends, to every figure or description 

 that exists in scientific works, whether I have myself seen individuals of the species 

 or not. 



