94 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



The division Fulgorinse may be again divided, but this I am 

 not able to reahze in detail owing to the inadequacy of my 

 material for research. Of Stul's twelve subfamilies belonging to 

 this family, a considerable number must be rejected, partly 

 because the characters employed by this author are of a largely 

 heuristic nature, and of poor value ; partly because the antennal 

 sensory organs (see above) belong to different types, whose 

 occurrence points to the presence of natural groups as their 

 occurrence coincides with other peculiarities in the insect's 

 structure. Thus at least the " Fulgorida," "Dictyopharida," 

 and *' Cixiida," Stal, must be thrown into one group, whose 

 sensory organs (in the genera examined by me) are endowed 

 with an encircling of spiniform processes ; there is also strong 

 agreement in the structure of the empodia, &c. Next, at least 

 the "Eurybrachida" and *'Issida" must be amalgamated, 

 though from the last-named " subfamily" the peculiar genus 

 Tettigometra, and perchance other forms, must be separated ; 

 the group thus composed (with Issus, Eurijhrachys, and Cal- 

 liscelis as important representatives) is characterized by their 

 sensory organs showing from some to many plain "blades," but 

 not any surrounding circle of spines. Tettigometra (at least 

 with the addition of the surely very closely allied Isthmia, Stal, 

 unknown to me) must stand as type of a little group characterized 

 by the above-mentioned conspicuous sensory organs, and by the 

 altogether peculiar structure of the insects. Then " Eicaniida " 

 and "Flatida" (and perchance " Acanoniida," Stal) must be 

 thrown together, showing strong similarity in the structure of 

 the wings, scutellum, &c., and agreement in the sensory organs, 

 which are surrounded by peculiar processes, and possess exceed- 

 ingly few sensory "blades." On "Achilida," " Tropiduchida," 

 " Derbida," and " Lophopida," I do not venture to express any 

 opinion ; the probabilities are that in the end a portion of their 

 forms must be placed in the same group as Cixius, while the rest 

 may possibly form one whole group, or very few small ones. 



I perceive quite well the meagreness of this last section of 

 my paper, on account of the entirely inadequate research, and 

 its lack of thoroughgoing sharp characterization, and I ought 

 therefore, perhaps, not to have dealt with it. On the other 

 hand, it occurs to me, however, to contain divers propositions, 

 critical elucidations and hints, that will be of significance for a 

 future systematist, who, with the aid of lens and microscope, will 

 undertake the difficult task of a thoroughgoing group-erection of 

 related Jassid and Fulgorid genera, with adequate material ; this 

 last is absolutely necessary, if these erections are to possess some 

 lasting value. If this aim is approached, I think then that this 

 section (with the more special researches on antennte, tibise, and 

 tarsi, on which it is based) will have its justification as a small 

 preliminary work. 



