856 N. C. AGR. EXP. STA. BUL. 239 
Say in synonymy under coccinea, an action that comports with the original 
description. I follow earlier workers in placing Tettigonta teliformis Walker and 
Tettigonia picta Walker in synonymy with coccinea as a result of my examination 
of the lectotype and holotype respectively, of these nominal species. Fowler’s 
Tettigonia idonea is one of several color varieties in Central America. It grades 
into the commoner varieties of coccinea, as shown by a series in the USNM. 
Olsen discussed three color varieties of ‘‘Proconia sambuci’’, which were labeled 
in the Fitch collection, but nomina nuda until he briefly described them 
(1918b:120). They were sambuci, confluenta, and punctata. | have seen three 
specimens each bearing one of the above names, and each bearing a label: 
‘Fitch’s Collection”. They are in the USNM and were doubtless the basis of 
Oman’s (1949a:70) listing them in synonymy under coccinea. I agree with this 
disposition. I select now, as lectotype of Tettigonia parabolica Taschenberg, a 
male specimen from Martin Luther University collection in Halle an der 
Salle. It is without a label, but a closely associated label (with no specimen) 
on a pin states: “‘parabolica/m/ [illegible word]”. Another specimen in the 
type-series bore the label, “‘Illinois’’. 
The present interpretation of Proconia confluens Uhler is based on a male 
‘“cotype”’ specimen in the USNM. It is presently designated as lectotype. It 
bears labels: ‘‘Proconia/confluenta/Dr. Kenrly Uhler/N.W. Bound. Surv.” 
and ‘“‘PR Uhler/Collection.”” It is conspecific with a number of other 
specimens in the USNM determined as confluens. I follow DeLong and Severin 
and their original illustration in keeping Neokolla confluens var. pacifica as a syn- 
onym of confluens. I examined the type of Keonolla confluens ssp. surcula DeLong 
and Currie. 
My interpretation of Tettigonia consobrina Fowler is based on an examination 
of the male lectotype in the British Museum. 
I have studied the type of Keonolla curta DeLong and Currie, but did not il- 
lustrate it because the original illustration is sufficient. The male pygofer is 
like the illustration of G. spinosa (DeLong and Currie) (fig. 701c) in shape, and 
the pygofer process is almost straight, as in spinosa. The male plates are about 
the same length, relative to the pygofer, as in spinosa, but are more narrowed 
apically, and with larger macrosetae in a single row. The aedeagal shaft dif- 
fers in form from that of spinosa. 
I have not seen the type of Tettigonia cythura Baker, and my identification of 
this species is based on labeled specimens in the USNM. 
My interpretation of Poeciloscarta distanti Metcalf is based on a study of the 
female lectotype of Tettigonia scutellata Distant in the BM and a dissection of a 
male I compared with it there. 
My interpretation of the male of Tettigonia dohrni Signoret is based on a 
male specimen compared with a drawing of the anterior dorsum of the female 
lectotype. It is very close to and may be identical’ to Keonolla gemella DeLong 
and Currie. 
My interpretation of Tettigonia edwardsi Signoret is based on the female lec- 
totype in MHNP, which I compared with my illustrations of the female lec- 
totype of Tettigonia magica Stal (RMS). I have compared Schréder’s type of 
Tettigella salvadorensis, a male, with the genitalia illustrations published here. 
