GRASSHOPPERS — GURNEY AND BROOKS 81 



Melanoplus borealis utaliensis Scudder, new combination 



Figures 8,b,g; 9,e; 10,e; ll,e; 16,/; 18; Plate 4,b 



Melanoplus utahensis Scudder, Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 36 (154), pp. 19, 32' 

 1897; Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 20, pp. 132, 167-168, pi. 11, fig. 10, 1897 

 (1 male, Salt Lake Valley, Utah), 



The unique male type, cited by Rehn and Hebard (1912, p. 79), is 

 labeled "S. L. Val. Utah 8-30"; "L. Bruner Collector"; "Drawn"; 

 "Mel. utahensis Scudder's Type, 1895." Also, the specimen bears a 

 Bruner manuscript label and more recently attached type labels and 

 comments on tj^pe locality (USNM). 



Neither precise type locality nor the year of the type's capture is 

 definitely known. When Hebard examined the type, probably in the 

 late 1920's, he attached a label reading "From a western canyon of the 

 Wasatch Mts., back from Ogden." A male and female from a series 

 of four specimens from Ogden in the Philadelphia (ANSP) collection 

 were labeled by Hebard as topotypes. Each of these bears a printed 

 label "Ogden, Utah," and one male is labeled "Melanoplus utahensis 

 Bruner, Type spec," apparently in Bruner's handwriting. The pair 

 labeled as topotypes by Hebard bear the further notation "Taken w. 

 type," added by Hebard. Neither in Scudder's revision nor elsewhere 

 have we found any information relating to these four specimens. It 

 may be that Bruner did not send them to Scudder for inclusion in the 

 revision and that, although Bruner gave them a manuscript name, 

 they were not studied again until his North American collection be- 

 came available to Hebard. Scudder referred to the Bruner manuscript 

 name when utahensis was described, and the unique type has a Bruner 

 name label like the one on the Ogden male. These labels may have 

 led Hebard to assume that the whole series was taken together. 



Unless more information supporting Hebard 's opinion becomes 

 available, it seems logical to conclude from the itinerary discussed by 

 Bruner (1890) that the type was collected near Salt Lake City in 

 1890, and that the Ogden specimens are not topotypes. In a report 

 to C. V. Riley dated Sept. 1, 1890, Bruner described a trip made in 

 August, primarily to Idaho. Near the end of the trip he went to 

 Ogden and Salt Lake City, "at both of which points collections were 

 made." Thence, he went directly home to Lincoln, Nebr., by train. 

 Because of the date on the specimen, August 30, it is probable that 

 the specimen was collected during Bruner's last day in the field. 

 Since Big Cottonwood Canyon, where utahensis has been collected, 

 is within a few miles of Salt Lake City, that or a nearby area may 

 well have been the locality which Bruner visited. The 1890 trip is 

 the only one for which a record apparently satisfying the known 

 data has been found. The fact that the specimen was deposited in 



477119—59 6 



