﻿RICE 
  GRASSHOPPERS 
  OF 
  GENUS 
  HIEROGLYPHUS 
  AND 
  THEIR 
  NEAREST 
  ALLIES. 
  235 
  

  

  Formosan 
  specimens, 
  according 
  to 
  Shiraki's 
  figures 
  ; 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  impossible 
  that 
  this 
  

   difference 
  in 
  dimensions 
  may 
  be 
  characteristic 
  for 
  subspecies, 
  but 
  it 
  cannot 
  be 
  stated 
  

   definitely 
  until 
  more 
  extensive 
  series 
  are 
  studied. 
  The 
  dimensions 
  of 
  specimens 
  

   from 
  different 
  localities 
  are 
  as 
  follows 
  : 
  — 
  

  

  

  

  Formosa 
  

  

  

  

  W. 
  China. 
  

  

  (after 
  Shiraki). 
  

  

  India. 
  

  

  

  <? 
  ? 
  

  

  <? 
  ? 
  

  

  ct 
  

  

  Length 
  of 
  body 
  

  

  35 
  49-55 
  

  

  40-42 
  61-65 
  

  

  41 
  

  

  ,, 
  pronotum 
  . 
  . 
  

  

  8 
  11-5-12 
  

  

  8-8-5 
  12-12-1 
  

  

  8-5 
  

  

  ,, 
  elytra 
  

  

  25 
  34-36 
  

  

  28-30 
  38^11 
  

  

  32 
  

  

  hind 
  femur 
  18 
  20-23 
  18-19 
  27-8-28 
  19 
  

  

  Specimens 
  examined. 
  — 
  Amoy, 
  China, 
  1 
  $ 
  ; 
  Chung-King, 
  Sze-Chuen 
  Prov., 
  

   W. 
  China, 
  2 
  ( 
  J<J; 
  Hongkong, 
  1 
  $; 
  "Can." 
  (probably 
  Kanara, 
  India), 
  1 
  $ 
  (all 
  in 
  

   Brit. 
  Museum) 
  ; 
  Pusa, 
  Bihar, 
  India, 
  26.vii.1916, 
  16.vii.1919, 
  2$$ 
  (Pusa 
  Coll.). 
  

  

  Other 
  localities 
  whence 
  the 
  species 
  has 
  been 
  recorded 
  are 
  Formosa 
  (Shiraki, 
  

   Matsumura, 
  Bolivar) 
  and 
  Than 
  Moi, 
  Tonkin 
  (Carl). 
  

  

  Economic 
  importance. 
  —According 
  to 
  Matsumura, 
  the 
  species 
  is 
  a 
  pest 
  of 
  sugar- 
  

   cane 
  in 
  Formosa, 
  damaging 
  also 
  Canna 
  indica. 
  No 
  record 
  of 
  its 
  being 
  a 
  pest 
  in 
  

   India 
  is 
  available, 
  but 
  this 
  may 
  be 
  due 
  simply 
  to 
  insufficient 
  investigations. 
  

  

  4. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  nigrorepletus, 
  Bol. 
  (fig. 
  2 
  E, 
  3B). 
  

  

  1891. 
  \\Hieroglyph 
  us 
  furcifer, 
  Indian 
  Museum 
  Notes, 
  ii, 
  p. 
  30 
  (partly), 
  figure. 
  

   1906. 
  \\Hieroglyphus 
  furcifer, 
  Maxwell-Lefroy, 
  Mem. 
  Dep. 
  Agr. 
  India, 
  i, 
  no. 
  1, 
  pi. 
  x, 
  

   fig. 
  8.' 
  

  

  1906. 
  \\Hicroglyphus 
  furcifer, 
  Maxwell-Lefroy, 
  Ind. 
  Ins. 
  Pests, 
  p. 
  120 
  (partly), 
  fig. 
  138. 
  

  

  1907. 
  \\HieroglypJms 
  furcifer, 
  Maxwell-Lefroy, 
  Mem. 
  Dep. 
  Agr. 
  India, 
  i, 
  no. 
  2, 
  p. 
  120, 
  

   fig. 
  4. 
  ' 
  

  

  1909. 
  \\Hieroglyphus 
  furcifer, 
  Maxwell-Lefroy, 
  Ind. 
  Ins. 
  Life, 
  p. 
  87 
  (partly), 
  fig. 
  27. 
  

   1912. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  nigrorepletus, 
  Bolivar, 
  Trab. 
  Mus. 
  Madrid, 
  no. 
  6, 
  pp. 
  54, 
  56. 
  

   1914. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  nigro-rcpletus, 
  Coleman, 
  Journ. 
  Bombay 
  N.H. 
  Soc, 
  xxiii, 
  pp. 
  

  

  172-174, 
  plate, 
  figs. 
  1, 
  2. 
  

   1914. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  nigrorepletus, 
  Fletcher, 
  Some 
  S. 
  Ind. 
  Insects, 
  p. 
  531, 
  fig. 
  425. 
  

   1914. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  bcttoni, 
  Kirby, 
  Fauna 
  Brit. 
  Ind., 
  Acrid., 
  pp. 
  202, 
  203, 
  figs. 
  118, 
  119. 
  

   1916. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  vastator, 
  Carl, 
  Revue 
  Suisse 
  Zool., 
  xxiv, 
  no. 
  6, 
  pp. 
  478, 
  479, 
  481. 
  

   1918. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  nigrorepletus, 
  Bolivar, 
  Rev. 
  R. 
  Acad. 
  Cien. 
  Madrid, 
  xvi, 
  seg. 
  ser., 
  

   p. 
  397. 
  

  

  1918. 
  Hieroglyphus 
  nigrorepletus, 
  Bolivar, 
  Trab. 
  Mus. 
  Madrid, 
  no. 
  34, 
  p. 
  29. 
  

  

  This 
  is 
  undoubtedly 
  the 
  most 
  easily 
  recognisable 
  species 
  of 
  the 
  whole 
  genus, 
  

   and 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  excuse 
  for 
  the 
  existing 
  confusion 
  regarding 
  it 
  in 
  the 
  economic 
  and 
  

   systematic 
  literature. 
  Especially 
  noteworthy 
  is 
  the 
  peculiar 
  shape 
  of 
  the 
  pronotum, 
  

   as 
  well 
  as 
  the 
  coloration 
  of 
  the 
  latter, 
  not 
  to 
  mention 
  the 
  shape 
  of 
  the 
  male 
  cerci 
  

   (fig. 
  2E). 
  The 
  numerous 
  figures 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  existing 
  in 
  the 
  Indian 
  literature, 
  

   and 
  quoted 
  above, 
  render 
  its 
  identification 
  very 
  easy, 
  provided 
  that 
  the 
  necessary 
  

   corrections 
  in 
  accordance 
  with 
  the 
  foregoing 
  quotations 
  are 
  made 
  in 
  the 
  legends 
  

   to 
  the 
  figures. 
  

  

  The 
  species 
  is 
  liable 
  to 
  considerable 
  individual 
  variation 
  which, 
  however, 
  does 
  

   not 
  affect 
  its 
  principal 
  characteristics. 
  First 
  of 
  all, 
  there 
  are 
  two 
  distinct 
  forms 
  

   of 
  the 
  species 
  with 
  regard 
  to 
  the 
  development 
  of 
  the 
  elytra 
  and 
  wings. 
  In 
  the 
  

   brachypterous 
  form 
  (f. 
  brachyptera, 
  Bol.) 
  the 
  elytra 
  are 
  scarcely 
  longer 
  than 
  half 
  

   the 
  abdomen, 
  and 
  the 
  wings 
  are 
  rudimentary 
  ; 
  while 
  the 
  macropterous 
  form 
  has 
  

   the 
  elytra 
  extending 
  well 
  beyond 
  the 
  apex 
  of 
  the 
  abdomen 
  and 
  the 
  wings 
  perfectly 
  

  

  