H. M. Parshley.
Hemipterological Notes.
Psyche 25:64-65, 1918.

Full text (searchable PDF, 168K)
Durable link: http://psyche.entclub.org/25/25-064.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

Psyche [June
HEMIPTEROLOGICAL NOTES.
BY H. M. PARSHLEY.
Smith College, Northampton, Mass.
Anasa repetita Heidemann.
On September 19, 1917 at Northampton, Mass., I found this species in large numbers feeding on the Star-cucumber, Siyos angulatus Linn. More than fifty examples, both adults and nymphs, were taken on two vines. The rarity of the species in collections is undoubtedly due to the fact that its food-plant has been unknown to collectors. I noted one example of Anasa armigera Say on the same plant and another in flight nearby. Melanolestes picipes var. abdominalis Herrich-Schaeffer. The forms of this Reduviid which exhibit more or less red on the abdomen are usually considered to constitute a distinct species, M. abdominalis, as originally described by Herrich-Schaeffer, although there seem to be no structural criteria to separate the two. Stall treated abdominalis as a color variety (var. b) of picipes, but Uhler2 felt that the evidence at his command did not warrant his merging them, since he never found the two forms united in copu- lation though both often occured under the same stone. I have in my collection examples showing all gradations from those having only the slightest tinge of red along the connexivum to those having the abdomen entirely red; I have also a pair taken in copulation (Framingham, Mass., C. A. Frost) in which the male is an entirely black long-winged picipes and the female a short- winged abdominalis, with red connexivum. It would seem there- fore that the abdominalis form should be ranked as a mere color variety and not as a species distinct from picipes, as I have done in my New England list.
The consideration of this case brings up the matter of color varieties and subspecific forms in general. In the study of some groups of insects, notably ants, the subdivisions of species are treated according to a definite system based on a relatively com- 1 Enum. Hem. 2, 1872, p. 107.
Hem. west of Mississippi River, Bull. U. S. Geol. & Geog. Surv. Terr., II., No. 6,1876,~. 330. Pu&e 25:64-65 (1918). hup ttpsychu einclub orgt25t25-064 html



================================================================================

19181 Parshley-Hemipte-ological Notes 65 plete knowledge of the forms, the concepts subspecies and variety, for instance, being distinct and clearly formulated. The study of the Hemiptera is less advanced, and there is usually insufficient ground for deciding whether a certain form of a species is to be con- sidered subspecific (racial) or varietal in this strict sense. This being the case I have thus far denominated as varieties all forms of less than specific value, and have used trinomials in their designa- tion,leaving it to be inferred that all such varieties pertain, perhaps, to the typical subspecies, as their frequently coincident ranges would seem to indicate.
Recently a tendency has become very evident to give definite varietal names not only to forms characterized by slight struc- tural peculiarities but also to those differing only in color. Exam- ples of the latter are to be found in the Mirid genera Horciasl and Paracaloc~is.~ Specimens of Horcias dislocatus, for instance, may be almost entirely black, almost entirely red, or conspicuously striped with red, black, and yellow. But a varied and more or less intergrading collection of these different forms may sometimes be taken from a single branch, and may very possibly have issued from the same batch of eggs. Thus such "varieties" represent a very different conception from the varieties of the myrmecologist, corresponding in some cases, no doubt, to his unnamed "nest- varieties," and this must be borne in mind in considering the trinomial names of Hemiptera.
As remarked by McAtee, it seems unscientific to make no at- tempt in collections and taxonomic treatments to separate these often totally distinct appearing forms, and if they are to be sepa- rated they should be given names for several good reasons. I have recently received communications on the subject which lead me to suggest that this matter calls for discussion with a view to bringing hemipterological concepts and nomenclature into harmony with the ideas established in the study of groups which are better' understood. At present I, for one, use the term variety non- committally to designate subdivisions of the species (not aberra- tions) which I think should be named, but without any structural, geographic, or genetic connotation.
1 Van Duzee, E. P.
Hernipterological Gleanings, Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci., Vol. 10, 1912, pp. 477-512.
2 McAtee, W. L.
Key to the Nearctic species of Paracalocoris, Ann. Ent. Soo. America, Vol. 9, 1916, pp. 366-390.




================================================================================