88 ENTOMOLOGISK TIDSKRIFT 1 894. 



superior condylus through a stout imisc. adductor and a rather 

 slender muse, abductor, but no muscles are going from the inte- 

 rior of the mandibles to any median plate. ^ 



Hemiinerus most decidedly belongs to the Orthoptera, and, 

 as far I can see, it does not possess any character removing it 

 from this order. It is more difficult to point out the family, near 

 to which it ought to be placed, nobody having tried to give a 

 thorough representation, based upon an extensive morphological 

 study of the skeleton etc., of the main genera in the very nume- 

 rous families put together in this group, a study I intend to 

 undertake on a subsequent occasion. I do not think that it 

 would be correct to lay any stress on that in Hemiinerus the 

 eyes and wings are wanting; but its very anomalous propagation 

 seems to me to be of greater systematical importance. It is easily 

 seen that it has no connection with the Ephcmeridœ, Libellulina, 

 Perlariœ, Termitina, PJiysopoda and Psocina; in the structure of 

 the thorax etc. it is also far removed from the Mantodea, Phasmo- 

 dea, Gryllodea, Locustimi and Acridiodea. The remaining groups 

 are but Blattina, Embidœ, Forficulina and Mallophaga. From 

 the Mallophaga it is profoundly divergent in the structure of the 

 whole skeleton; the Blattina, which are very similar in general 

 aspect, disagree in the structure of the antennae, in the structure 

 of the neck (and the accompanying direction of the head), but, 

 above all, in the totally different structure of the thorax, in the 

 long, triangular, protruding coxœ, 5 joints in the tarsi etc. Com- 

 paring specimens of Embidœ with Hemimerus several very essen- 

 tial differences are easily found; comparing, on the contrary, the 

 animal with the Forficulina we are surprised at finding very great 

 accordance in almost all structural features. Taking one of the 

 wingless species, as For/, acanthopygia Gene or Labidiira advena 

 Mein, (and executing only a superficial dissection of this form) 



1 In »Zoolog. Anzeiger» 1 have briefly indicated these differences in the 

 structure of the mandibles between Thysaiitira and Ortlwptera; here I perhaps 

 may add that the larvœ of the Epliemcridcz as to the articulation and muscles 

 of the mandibles in the essential points are agreeing with those of the Thysa- 

 )mra {Campodca, Japyx, Collcvibola, Machilis, Lepisina), while all other Ortlwp- 

 tera and their larvce possess the above indicated structure. The Ephemeridœ 

 and especially their larvEe also exhibit several other primitive features, f. inst. 

 in the structure of the legs of the larviÇ. 



24 



