overlooked if not targeted by collectors. Hence, I will briefly describe the 
characteristics that can be used to differentiate these two species. 
There are four main characteristics to consider: size, colouration and two 
morphological characteristics. Neotridactylus apicalis is the larger of the two 
species, the adults reaching up to 10 mm in length, which is about twice as long as 
an adult Ellipes minutus. However, an immature N. apicalis may be the same size as 
an adult of E. minutus. Therefore, colouration together with size makes for a more 
definite identification of smaller insects. Neotridactylus apicalis is darker overall, 
having both black and chocolate brown markings on a light brown background. In 
Ellipes minutus, the markings are black, strikingly contrasted with a light, yellow- 
brown background colour. 
The two morphological characteristics are probably the most reliable for 
identification, but require at least lOx magnification and a basic understanding of 
orthopteroid anatomy. Neotridactylus apicalis has what is called “a prosternum with 
a median conical process.” The “median conical process” is a cone-shaped 
projection underneath the head between the two front legs. This “prosternal 
projection” is lacking in Ellipes. In addition, the length of the hind tarsus (the 
segment immediately beyond the tibia) of N. apicalis is greater than or equal to the 
length of the subapical tibial spurs; but in E. minutus the hind tarsus is vestigial, 
being much shorter than the subapical tibial spurs and barely visible. For an 
illustration of the parts of the hind leg in question, I refer readers to Dr. Gerald 
Fauske’s 2002 online publication. The chapter called “Anatomy of a Grasshopper” is 
found at 
http://www.ndsu. nod ak. edu/instru ct/brew er/brewer/d ept/h opp er/an atomyimgS. h tm. 
In tridactylids, there are two short apical spurs, and two much longer subapical 
spurs, attached to the hind end of the tibia along with the tarsus. 
Abundance and Distribution in Ontario 
Vickery and Kevan (1985) mapped only four localities for Neotridactylus apicalis in 
Ontario, all in the southwestern part of the province. However, Dr. Stephen 
Marshall and Steven Paiero have found that the species is not as rare in southern 
Ontario as previously believed. It is the more common of the Ontario tridactylids; 
but, it is not often collected and is still not considered very common. The phrase 
“uncommon, but not rare" might best convey its abundance in the province. 
Capinera et al ( 2004) include parts of northwestern Ontario, e.g., the Kenora and 
Rainy River Districts, within the range of Neotridactylus apicalis. The existence of 
the species in this area seems to have been inferred from a single record in southeast 
Manitoba, and another in northern Minnesota (cf. Vickery and Kevan 1985). No 
collections have been made from northwestern Ontario. However, it is possible that 
the species occurs there. 
108 
