304 Descriptive Catalogue [1898. 



Teibe MANTICHOEINL 



Gen. MANTICHOEA. 

 Catal., p. 2. 



It seems as if the species of the genus Mantichora were to prove a 

 constant source of trouble. 



Dr. Horn writes to me after having examined my types and co- 

 types : — 



"Mantichora scabra, Per., nee Klug, and M. latipennis, Per., nee 

 Klug, nee Waterhouse, are for me the same species ; I see no 

 difference between them and the unique type of M. lierculeana, KL, 

 with which I have compared them. 



"Mantichora latipennis, Klug, is not synonymous with M. 

 latipennis, Waterh., but with M. mygaloides, Thorns. I have also 

 compared the two. 



" Mantichora scabra, Klug, was not in your collection ; it is much 

 smaller than M. herculeana, but I consider it as simply a variety of 

 the latter. 



"Mantichora livingstoni, Casteln., is identical with M. mygaloides, 

 Thorns., var. damarensis, Per. ; Horn, Deutsch. Entom. Zeit., 1896, 

 p. 353." 



To this I can only say that if such is the case M. latipennis, 

 Waterh., is identical with M. herculeana, Klug., and should have 

 precedence. As I have already pointed out, the former species was 

 described from a female example, and the identity of the male 

 cannot thus be ascertained with certainty. Since, however, M. lati- 

 pennis of Klug, nee Waterhouse, is identical with M. mygaloides, 

 Thorns., I suggest that the nomenclature should read thus : — 

 Mantichora latipennis, female, Waterh. 

 = herculeana, male, Klug. 

 = latipennis, male, Per. 

 var. scabra, Klug. 



Regarding M. scabra, Per., I maintain that it is different from M. 

 latipennis. It is at once distinguishable from it by the abrupt 



