290 REPORT UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 
but in the Locustari® the ligula is four-lobed, and in the Gryllid® 
decidedly so. In the Manful® and Bhtttari® the ligula is plainly four- 
lobed, nearly as much so as in the Termitid®. In the Pliasinid® the 
ligula is intermediate in form between the Mantid® and Locustari®. 
The prothorax is usually remarkably large, particularly the notuin. 
The meso- and metauotum exactly repeat each other, and the metanotum 
is usually (Acrydii and Locustari®) longer and larger than the mesono- 
tum, the hind wings being almost uniformly much larger than the anterior 
pair. The pleurites are very large and square as well as high, the epi- 
sternaaud epimera being large and oblong and equally developed, lho 
sternites are very large and broad. The cox® are sometimes (Blatta) very 
large; the hind legs in the Acrydii are much larger than the anterior 
pairs. The fore wings are narrower than the hinder pair, and show a 
slight tendency to become subely triform ; ou the other hand the hind 
wings are very large and broad, distinctly net-veined, with numerous 
longitudinal veins, and they fold up longitudinally. 
The abdomen has eleven uromeres, the eleventh forming a triangular 
tergite. The cercopoda are often (Blatta, Mantis, &c.) multi-articulate 
and well developed, while the ovipositor is otten large and perfect. Ihe 
metamorphosis is more incomplete than in the Pseudoneuroptera. 
With the exclusion of the Forficulari®, the Orthoptera, as here re- 
stricted, are a tolerably well circumscribed group; and though there 
are great structural differences between the families, yet the connection 
or sequence of the families from the Blattari® through the l hasmid® 
and Mantid® and Acrydii to the Locustari®, and, dually, the highest 
family, the Gryllid®, is one which can be distinctly perceived. There 
is no occasion for a subdivision of the order into groups highei than 
families, as the Blattari® are but a family removed from the Mantid®. 
Order 3. PSEUDONEUROPTERA Erichson. 
It is difficult, if not impossible, to satisfactorily characterize by a 
sharp-cut definition this very elastic order. As regards the thorax, 
there is no uniformity in the structure that we have been able to dis- 
cover, nor is there in the structure of the wings, nor more than a gen- 
eral resemblance in the mouth-parts. 
The definition of the Pseudoneuroptera in Hagen’s Synopsis of the Neu- 
roptera of North America, as given in the analytical table, which is stated 
in a foot-note to have been prepared at the request of the Smithsonian In- 
stitution by Baron Osten Sacken, gives no fundamental characters based 
ou a study of the trunk. Those mentioned are what we have called peri- 
pheral characters, i. e., those drawn from the mouth-parts, wings, and ap- 
pendages. So far as we know, no satisfactory definition of the Pseudo- i 
neuroptera has ever been given. In Hagen’s Synopsis, among the j 
other superficial characters given, are these: “Lower lip mostly cleft”; • 
“antenn® either subulate and thin, the tarsi three- to five- articulate; or ( 
setiform, or filiform, in which case the tarsi are two- to four- articulate.” f 
