MCNEILL REVISION OF THE TRUXALIN.-E OF NORTH AMERICA. 219 



Eritettex virgafus, Bruner, 1889. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. , XII, 56. 

 Hab. Apparently a rare species, it has heretofore been reported 

 only from Texas. It occurs also in Arkansas. 



2. Eritettix carina lus, Scud. 



GonipJiocenis canmitiis, Scud., 1875. Cent. Orth., 23. 



Gomphocerus carinatus , Bruner, 1889. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus , XII, 56. 



Hab. Middle States (Scud.). 



I think there is little doubt but that this species is a variety oi E. 

 virgatus with fuliginous wings. I am unacquainted with it, however, 

 and prefer to retain the name. 



3. Eritettix variabilis, Bruner. 

 Eritettix variabilis, Bruner, 1S89. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XII, 56. 

 Hab. Silver City, New Mexico (Bruner). 



This species is distinguishable from all others of the genus in having 

 the antennae acuminate instead of clavate at the tij). 



4. Erttettix tricarinatus, Thos. 



Stciiobotiinis tricariiiatus, Thos., 1873. Syn. Acrid. N. Am., 84. 



Stenobothnts tricarinatus, Bruner, 1883. 3rd Rept. Ent. Com., 55. 



Stenobothrus tricarinatus, Bruner, 1889. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 

 XII, 56. 



Stenobotiirus tricarinatus, Osborn, 1892. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci., 

 1890-91, 4. 



Hab. This species has been reported but once outside of Wyo- 

 ming. Herbert Osborn gives it as not common in Iowa. The Uni- 

 ted States Museum contains numerous specimens from the first men- 

 tioned locality. 



5. Eritettix simplex, Scud. 



Gomplwcerus simplex, Scud., 1869. Proc. Am. Ent. Soc, H, 305. 



Gompiwcerus sinplex, Thos., 1873. Syn. Acrid. N. Am., 97. 



Goinp/iocerus simplex, BxvmQx, 1877. Can. Ent., IX., 144. 



Gomphocerus simplex, Bruner, 1883. 3rd. Rept. Ent. Com., 56. 



Hab. Said by Scudder to occur in Delaware. It does not seem 

 to have been recognized there since. It was reported by Bruner in 

 1877 in the Can. F^nt., IX, 144, to occur in Nebraska. Since he 

 gives Delaware as the only locality for this species in the 3rd Rept. 

 Ent. Com., 56, in 1883, it is probable that he was mistaken in the first 



