76 
MEMBRA CIDJE. 
SPHONGOP HORUS. 
In the genus Sphongophorus we seem to arrive at the height of speciali¬ 
sation of the pronotum as regards form. The contortions assumed are most 
varied in character, but their significance or advantage to the insects is not 
obvious. Nevertheless, we cannot well doubt that the assumption of bark-like and 
lichen-tinted characters are for protective purposes. The appearances of the insects 
are very deceptive to our eyes. If we could certainly prove that birds or parasitic 
insects are natural enemies to Membracidse, they might thus be cheated of their 
natural prey. 
Bates’ assertion that “ variation in animals may be sudden, discontinuous, and 
considerable,” appears to stand on the secure ground of fact. Violent “ sports ” 
certainly do here occur in unexpected directions. 
Genus : SPHONGOPHORUS.* 
Fairmaire, l.c. p. 260; Hypsauchenia , Germ. Am. and Serville; Centrotus, Kirby, Westwood, 1829. 
Head trilobed ; ocelli placed in a line passing through the middle of the eyes ; 
pronotum very variable in form ; sometimes arcuate, sometimes blown up into bladder¬ 
like processes, or erect and recurved into clavate protuberances ; tegmina elongated ; 
anterior tibiae dilated or spatulate ; hind tibiae prismatic ; scutellum covered. 
The old-world genus Hypsauchenia has a considerable resemblance outwardly to 
the above genus, but the tibiae are not spatulate, and the scutellum is uncovered. 
There are differences also in the neuration of the wings, so that Hypsauchenia must 
be grouped nearer to the Centrotidae. 
Sphongophorus, perhaps, shows the most extreme departures from the ordinary 
forms of the pronota of insects. Many species, as before stated, look like moving 
pieces of the gnarled bark of trees or pieces of detached fungus. 
The twisted masses are often grotesque, and we may think them extravagant 
We do not yet know what are the natural foes of the Membracidse, and therefore we 
are left to conjecture how these disguises, for such they appear to us, operate as 
protective. The masking can hardly be doubted, notwithstanding our difficulties in 
explaining the correlation of insect vision with that of mammals. 
Although the genus Sphongophorus is in itself so varied in form, and one sub¬ 
genus may pass almost insensibly into another, it may be conveniently divided into 
sections, as Stal and Fowler have done; with certain additions. 
* From mftoyyos, a sponge. 
