ORTHOPTERA— ACRIDIDAE— INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 863 



science has carried him a step too far, and, as I think he is wrong here, I 

 cannot follow him. 



A new genus, Camnula, is established for the reception of a species 

 from Vancouver's Island. This species, which the author says is very simi- 

 lar to Tragocephala sordida, I am inclined to believe is my Tr. pacijica. 



CE. discoidea, Serv., is removed to IUppiscus. This change I can readily 

 concur in. 



CEdipoda is very properly restricted to but a small portion of the hete- 

 rogeneous mass which has been thrown into it, for which entomologists 

 have reason to thank the author. Our CE. Carolina is retained, and appears 

 to be his typical genus ; this retains CE. trifasciata, Say, and CE. undulata, 

 Thos. A new species from Illinois is described under the name CE. Belfragii, 

 which is probably my CE. cincta, A new species from Mexico, CE. punctata, 

 is also described. CE. feuestralis, Serv., is removed to a new genus, Psinidia, 

 in which also two new species from Texas are placed. 



CE. maratima, Harr., is removed to Tremerotropus, also a new genus. 



No important change appears to have been made in the Tettigidce. 



Although the author of this work has made a number of changes which 

 I do not think entomologists can accept, as well as some which appear to 

 be unnecessary, yet it must be admitted that he has rendered an important 

 service to science in splitting up some of the heterogeneous and unwieldy 

 genera as CEdipoda, &c, and especially in properly determining and locating 

 the Linnsean, De Geerian, and Thunbergian species from an examination of 

 the specimens. It is to be regretted that, while he has such scrupulous 

 regard for the generic names of Linne, De Geer, and Thunberg, he should 

 occasionally fail to give the proper credit to modern authors, wholly ignor- 

 ing, as he states to me in a letter, the work of AValker, as this will necessi- 

 tate a change by some future orthopterologist, It is true the catalogue of 

 Walker is of but little value ; yet, so far as it is correct, it should be 

 accepted, no matter how much chaff surrounds the wheat. 



Accepting this author's changes in the larger groups so far as I con- 

 sider them correct, and making the modifications I have suggested, my 

 arrangement of the divisions of the family would then be as follows : — 



