HANSEN, H. J.: HEMIMERUS TALPOIDES WLK. 85 



of Sierra Leone, and most probably also in the last-named country, 

 where the typical specimens of Hem. talpoides have been cap- 

 tured. But only two of the differences between Saussure's and 

 my representation are essential enough to merit a further discus- 

 sion. Saussure writes (p. 1 1) about the sternite of the 9th seg- 

 ment: »lequel est grand, transversal, ayant son bord postérieur 

 large et taillé à l'angle obtus», and the appertinent figure (fig. 18) 

 shows about the same, while, as stated before, the sternite in the 

 male examined by me is »produced backwards as a somewhat 

 shorter, triangular lobe (PI. 3^ fig. 9), the median hind corner of 

 which is further produced into a smaller, somewhat oblique, spine- 

 like process, which seen from the side (PI. 3, fig. 10), is curved 

 considerably outwards» (p. 75), but it seems to me to be possible, 

 that Saussure has overlooked these peculiarities, otherwise this 

 difference may be a specific character. Further Saussure deli- 

 neates the penis and the 2 genital hooks as being rather different 

 from what is found by me, the right hook being considerably 

 stouter and more straight, the left one not curved to such a 

 degree as seen in my figure (fig. 9). But his figures are, as men- 

 tioned before and with especial reference to what is stated about 

 the numerous joints in the antennae, too untrustworthy for laying 

 stress on such details. In uiy opinion it is most probable that 

 my species is the Hemimenis described by Walker and Saus- 

 sure, but according to the differences pointed out it is impossible 

 to state it with absolute certainty; it being, unfortunately, impos- 

 sible to borrow animals from the British Museum, I must leave 

 to the Entomologists of this Museum to settle this question. 



A large portion of Saussures treatise is taken up by »Dis- 

 cussion des affinités des Hemimerus» (p. \2 — 14) and »Compa- 

 raison avec les diveis Ordres d'insectes» (p. 15 — 18), of which 

 the remarks and results, based upon the existence »d'un second 

 labium» now are entirely worthless. His »Comparaison avec les 

 Thysanoures» based upon Meinert's well-known paper about Japyx 

 and Campodea, is much better, but not complete, his »Compa- 

 raison avec les Orthoptères» is of little value. His establishing 

 of a new order, Diploglossaia, is, in consequence of me represen- 

 tation, very unfortunate. Quite inconceivable to me is his con- 

 cluding remark (p. 24), in which the author, according to new 



21 



