49() Mr. M. Bun- — Notes on the Forficularla. 



'' furcifera''' specimens have always nine (tliat is, are males) : 

 it appears, therefore, that de Borinans was mesmerised by the 

 forceps and pygidiuin oi '' semifalva,'" \\\\\c\\ are unusually 

 developed for a female, and considered tlie specimens to be 

 males. The second tarsal segment, examined by a microscope, 

 shows practically no dilation; and a.^ farcifera is tlie type of 

 Splnngolahis, it effectually removes that genus from the 

 neighbourhood of Forjlcula, and conclusively demonstrates 

 its independence from Apterygida, of which the type, 

 media, is totally different : unless, therefore, SpJdngolabis is 

 shown to coincide with some other existing genus, it must be 

 revived for this species, and probably also for S. hawaiiensis, 

 Borm., and S. horneensis, Borm. It is wrongly revived by 

 Verhoeff for S. sansiharica and its allies, as by his very 

 definition of the new genus he excludes the typical Sj)ecies 

 of Sphinoglahis ; his genus certainly holds good, but will 

 require a new name. In the meantime, as the name 

 '' semifulva " occurs a few pages earlier than ^\furcifera " in 

 the same paper, the former name must stand, and therefore, 

 until the true position of the genus Sphingolabis is satisfac- 

 torily determined, this insect must be known as Sphingolabis 

 semifulva, Borm. 



Chdisoches vittatics, Burr, Ann. & IMag. Nat. Hist. (7) 

 xi. p. 274 (1903), is identical with Sphinoglahis variegata, 

 Kirby, Journ. Linn. Soc, Zool. xxiii. p. 32G (1891), as I 

 liave seen the types of both ; but it seems that both these 

 names must fall before the name employed by Fabricius 

 (Ent. Syst. ii. p. 5, 1793), who described what seems certainly 

 to be the same insect under the name Forjicula Jlavipennis. 

 As it is a true Chelisoches, it must be called Glielisoches 

 flavipennis (Fabr.). 



Chelisoches Shelfordi, Burr, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (7) vi. 

 p. 96, 1)1. iv. tig. 4 (1900), and Ch. h-rcules, Burr, I. c. 

 p. 97, pi. iv. fig. 2, are respectively the ? and <$ of the 

 same species. 'i'he former name occurs earlier and so must 

 stand. The form of the forceps of Ch. Shelfordi is so 

 unusual for a $ that I allowed myself to assume it to be a c? . 

 In several large Clielisochidse the females look like males 

 (p, g. Ch. glaucojyteriis) , and in-ohahly Ch. dorim, Borm., is the 

 ^ of Ch. superhus, Dolirn. 



Ptoyal Societies' Club, 



St. James's Street, S.W. 

 Julv 1005. 



