Article beginning on page 348.
Psyche 9:348-360, 1900.

Full text (searchable PDF)
Durable link: http://psyche.entclub.org/9/9-348.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.

wing muscles (and this view has much to
These authors have been the first to make support it), then no close agreement of ceph- any extensive examination of the skull in the alic and thoracic sclerites may be expected. light of embryology, and their creditable Granting the assumption, however, the argu- efforts will pave the way toward the true con- ments are impressive..
ception of the morphology of the skull,
ANOTHER NOTE ON DELTOCEPHALUS MELSHEIMERII. BY C. F. BAKER, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIF. Since there can be no more important
work in taxonomy than the accurate de-.
termination of types, I feel inclined to add still another note to the discussion concerning this species. Mr. Gillette's
voluminous remarks in Vol. 9, No. zgg of this Journal are both interesting and im- portant. But he meets the old objections by the discussion of new propositions
and leaves wholly out of consideration
that point on which my whole argument
was based. Both minif~~us and affinis
have been well described ; further argu- ment as to their distinctness does not
clear up our difficulty.
As it appears to me, the whole ques-
tion is this: Where is the type of
Melsheimerii? Some of Fitch's speci-
mens are in Albany, some in the Nat'l
Museum. In each place is a "type JJ of
this species. It becomes a question as
to which specimens the species was based on.
At the time I discussed the matter in
print the point was made that the size of the species as given in the original de- scription agreed with the Natl. Museum
type and precluded the possibility of its being affinis. My series of affinis con- tained a lot of specimens from all parts of the country and I could not find a
true "Melsheimerii" in the lot. Mr.
Gillette's study is very incomplete be-
cause it does not also include a report
on the Natl. Museum "type." His
failure to do this leaves the matter stand- ing in essentially the same light as be- fore the publication of his article.
The
comparison of the two types -the vital
point in die whole discussion has yet to be made.
For the same reasons Mr. Gillette's
remarks as to Chlorotettix are wholly
invalidated. I hope he will give us
a supplementary report on the really
essential points at issue, with the nec- essary evidence in hand and set the
matter finally and forever at rest.
A. SMITH & SONS, 146-148 WILLIAM ST., New York. UIABQFACTt-RERS AND IBPORTEBS Or
GOODS FOR ENTOMOLOGISTS,
Klaeger and Carlsbad Insect Pins, Setting Boards, Folding Nets, Locality and
Special Labels, Forceps, Sheet Cork, Etc. Other ~rticles are being added, Send for List.



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