112 Psyche [March-June 
noted, the club may just as well be considered three-jointed. 
The epinotal spines of polita are short, their length scarcely 
exceeding half the distance which separates their bases. The 
spines of irritabilis are about as long as the distance between 
their bases but by no stretch of the imagination can they be 
considered comparable to the colossal spines of paradoxa. As 
nearly as can be determined from Emery’s description and fig- 
ures of emeryi (6) (originally described by Emery as biroi , a 
preoccupied name which was later replaced by Forel) this insect 
is related to irritabilis. The epinotal spines are about the same 
length in the two species but they turn upward in emeryi and 
downward in irritabilis. A significant feature of Emery’s figure 
of emeryi is the two-jointed funicular club. The length of the 
scape cannot be estimated since it was not figured and the de- 
scription merely states that it is long. But even granting the 
unlikely supposition that the scape of emeryi is as long as that 
of paradoxa there is still no possibility of regarding the two 
insects as closely related. 
From the above it seems clear that the only member of the 
u paradoxa group” which can be assigned to Rhachiocrema is 
paradoxa itself. The fact is rather too obvious, for the dis- 
similarity between paradoxa and the remaining species is so 
marked that it brings up a second problem. Since Emery was 
fully acquainted with the structure of paradoxa his inclusion 
of that species in the subgenus Orthocrema raises a question as 
to the validity of Rhachiocrema. Several of the subgeneric 
characters of Rhachiocrema are more clearly marked in para- 
doxa than in wheeleri. Hence if Orthocrema is sufficiently flexi- 
ble to include paradoxa then wheeleri must also be included and 
there is no reason for the existence of Rhachiocrema. But it is 
by no means certain that Emery’s treatment of Orthocrema can 
be justified. The form which Emery gave to his emended ver- 
sion of Orthocrema differed substantially from the original con- 
cept of the subgenus which Santschi presented in 1918 (7). 
Emery combined with Orthocrema the species which Santschi 
had placed in Neocrema as well as some of the species which 
Forel had allotted to Physocrema. Emery’s reason for this ar- 
rangement is interesting and his statement on the matter is 
given in translation below: 
“This subgenus ( i.e ., Orthocrema) represents, in my opinion, 
the primitive stock, or at least that which comes nearest to the 
