WENRICH: SPERMATOGENESIS OF PHRYNOTETTIX MAGNUS. 95 
LLL... DISGUSSION: 
A. SYNAPSIS AND THE MATURATION DIVISIONS. 
It is very difficult to separate the subjects of synapsis and the matura- 
tion divisions from the subject of chromosome-individuality. Yet 
for the sake of clearness it seems best to make such an artificial separa- 
tion. It might also be possible to separate from each other the sub- 
jects of synapsis and maturation divisions, but since the two are so 
intimately related, it seems better to discuss them at the same time. 
Anything like a complete review of the literature on the subjects of 
synapsis and reduction divisions will not be attempted here, in view 
of the extensive general reviews in the monographs of Grégoire (’05, 
10) and Vejdovsky (’11-12), and the reviews relating particularly 
to orthopteran spermatogenesis by Davis (’08) and McClung (’14). 
a. Results from Orthoptera. 
McClung (’14) has so recently reviewed the literature on Orthop- 
‘tera dealing with this subject that it will suffice here to summarize 
briefly the results. The different views may be classified as follows: — 
I. Synapsis not considered. 
a. Both maturation divisions reductional. 
1. Wilcox (’94, ’96, ’97, ’01), Caloptenus. 
b. Both maturations equational. 
1. De Sinéty (’01), various Orthoptera. 
2. Granata (’10), Pamphagus. 
ce. Furst division transverse. 
1. Vom Rath (92, ’95), Gryllotalpa. 
2. Farmer and Moore (’05), Periplaneta. 
3. Jordan (’08), Aplopus. 
II. Synapsis described or assumed. 
A. Telosynapsis described or assumed. 
a. First maturation division reductional. 
_ 1. Montgomery (’05), Syrbula. 
2. Stevens (’05), Blatta. 
3. Wassilieff (’07), Blatta. 
4. Zweiger (’06), Forficula. 
