ZUR NOMENKLATUR DER PHASMOIDEN 



von 



H. H. Karny. 

 (Buitenzorg— Museum). 



Die Grundlage für die Systematik der Pliasmoiden bildet heute ohne 

 Zweifel die grosse Monographie von BRUNNriR v. W. & Redtenbacher. 

 Demgemäss sagte auch KiRBY (Syn. Cat. Orth., ill, p. vii; IQIO): "A great 

 monograph on this family has been published by Brunner von Wattenwyl 

 and J. Redtenbacher, 'Die Insektenfamilie der Phasmiden' (3 parts, 4to, Leipzig, 

 1906, 1907 1908), which supersedes everything previously published on 

 this group." 



Allerdings muss aber erwähnt werden, dass das Urteil der Fachmänner 

 nicht so einstimmig günstig war, wie es nach dieser Bemerkung zu erwarten 

 wäre. So sagt HEBARD (Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. XLV, p. 162; 1919): „It 

 did not seem possible that so pretentious a work, published as recently 

 as 1906 to 1908, by supposedly the greatest of orthopterists living at that 

 time, could actually be so carelessly executed, superficial and unsatisfactory. 

 Inexcusable ignorance of important literature is shown, publications ante- 

 dating, that work by as much as ten years being wholly or in part ignored. 

 The most important recent literature by Kirby, Rehn and Giglio-Tos has 

 received such treatment. As an instance: of the fourteen Ecuadorean 

 species of Phasmidae described by Giglio-Tos in 1898, three are mentioned. 

 Kirby's Catalogue, including fixation of all the genotypes, published in 

 1904, is completely ignored. Selection of single types or genotypes is in 

 almost all cases apparently deemed superfluous," (Und vorher auf Seite 

 158): "It is indeed deplorable that, with so many species before them 

 those authors have made virtually no effort to study and discuss these 

 problems in a scholarly and scientific manner. They have treated the forms 

 recorded or described throughout the 'Insektenfamilie der Phasmiden" 

 praclically without regard for any recent scientific literature, and in a brief, 

 stereotyi^ed and careless manner that would have brought little credit to 

 an author publishing one hundred years earlier. In their work palpably 

 careless inaccuracies in geographic records are frequent, and localities 

 given for many American species often prove the material to be misiden- 

 tified or mislabelled. We would be inclined to commend the series of 

 measurements given for each species discussed, but when we consider the 

 lack of care, errors and ignorance of geographic essentials and the hoste 



