348 



PSYCHE. 



[May, 1902 



wing muscles (and this view has much to 

 support it), then no close agreement of ceph- 

 alic and thoracic sclerites may be expected. 

 Granting the assumption, however, the argu- 

 ments are impressive- 



These authors have been the first to make 

 any extensive examination of the skull in the 

 light of embryology, and their creditable 

 efforts will pave the way toward the true con- 

 ception of the morphology of the skull. 



ANOTHER NOTE ON DELTOCEPHALUS MELSHEIMERII. 



BY C. F. BAKER, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIF. 



Since there can be no more important 

 work in taxonomy than the accurate de- 

 termination of types, I feel inclined to 

 add still another note to the discussion 

 concerning this species. Mr. Gillette's 

 voluminous remarks in Vol. 9, No. 299 of 

 this Journal are both interesting and im- 

 portant. But he meets the old objections 

 by the discussion of new propositions 

 and leaves wholly out of consideration 

 that point on which my whole argument 

 was based. Both minimus and affinis 

 have been well described ; further argu- 

 ment as to their distinctness does not 

 clear up our difficulty. 



As it appears to me, the whole ques- 

 tion is this : Where is the type of 

 Mehheimeriil Some of Fitch's speci- 

 mens are in Albany, some in the Nat'l 

 Museum. In each place is a " type " of 

 this species. It becomes a question as 

 to which specimens the species was based 

 on. 



At the time I discussed the matter in 



print the point was made that the size of 

 the species as given in the original de- 

 scription agreed with the Natl. Museum 

 type and precluded the possibility of its 

 being affinis. My series of affinis con- 

 tained a lot of specimens from all parts 

 of the country and I could not find a 

 true " Melsheimerii " in the lot. Mr. 

 Gillette's study is very incomplete be- 

 cause it does not also include a report 

 on the Natl. Museum "type." His 

 failure to do this leaves the matter stand- 

 ing in essentially the same light as be- 

 fore the publication of his article. The 

 comparison of the two types — the vital 

 point in the whole discussion has yet to 

 be made. 



For the same reasons Mr. Gillette's 

 remarks as to Chlorotettix are wholly 

 invalidated. I hope he will give us 

 a supplementary report on the really 

 essential points at issue, with the nec- 

 essary evidence in hand and set the 

 matter finally and forever at rest. 



A. SMITH & SONS, 146-148 WILLIAM ST., New York. 



M4M:FACTVBERS iSD mrORTERS OF 



GOODS FOR ENTOMOLOGISTS, 



^ Klaeger and Carlsbad Insect Pins, Setting 

 HMi Boards, Folding Nets, Locality and 



Special Labels, Forceps, Sheet Cork, Etc. 



Other prticles are being added. Send for List. 



