Dl E M c E BER, 19 19 oth as second nd class. yo ae ne Be i 3 panes cl ye OY Tg? 9s a ae = yr. tL zc ] i ¥ The Entomological Society of America _ _ Founded 1906. OFFICERS 1919. President James G. NEEDHAM. Ste Se . : . pee . First Vice-President Justus W. Fotsom .- - 3 - ° ° : Second Vice-President 3 Bi ate R. V. CHAMBERLIN . : ‘ rf . Cambridge, Mass. ' Managing Editor Annals ie Siar Herpert OssoRN - = - = + ~~ se Columbus, Ohio: . % Secretary- r: reasurer ee J. M. AtpricH . : : Executive Committee THe OFFICERS AND F. E. Lutz, ARTHUR GIBSON, £ G. A. Dray, G. C. Crampton. r f Committee on Nomenclature | «RRC as E. P. Fett, T. D. A. CocKERELL, NATHAN BANKS. Thomas Say Foundation RSS NatHan BANKS, A. D. MacGiirvray, P. P. CALVERT, ae E. B. WILLIAMSON, . cnt es J. M. ALDRICH, Editor, E. D. Batt, Treasurer. 9°! Committee on National Museum ' T. D. A. CocKxEerRELtt, Chairman, HERBERT OSBORN, Ww. BARNES, James G. NEEDHAM. ANNALS bictogicah OR= Medical Suiaja? The Entomological Society of America VeLuUme. X1ii;-1919 EDITORIAL BOARD HERBERT OSBORN, Managing Editor, COLUMBUS, OHIO. L. O. HOWARD, WM. A. RILEY, WASHINGTON, D. C. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. VERNON L. KELLOGG, | FRANK E. LUTZ, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIF.. NEw YorkK City, N. Y. WM. M. WHEELER, WM. S. MARSHALL, Boston, MASs. MADISON, WIS. E. M. WALKER J. G. SANDERS, TORONTO, CANADA. HARRISBURG, PA. PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE SOCIETY COLUMBUS, OHIO CONTENTS OF VOLUME XII. PAGE VaN Dyke, EDwIn C.—The Distribution of Insects in Western North America.. 1 Brues, C. T.—A New Chalcid-fly Parasitic on the Australian Bull-dog Ant.. 13 ALEXANDER, C. P.—Notes on the Crane-flies of the Hawaiian Islands CAbtyereilinG lays ID WoNtEs G2) Vs ee Be sexcalise sheet aie eT i Sy ee ec ane ET 25 HAH we: — he Californian. species of Malthodes..................:2.-++- 31 HERRICK, GLENN W. and DETWEILER, JOHN I).—Notes on the Repugnatorial Clandssom ©erhaimsNotodonid Caterpillars: 5.95220... cu eo ee 44 MosHER, EpNA—Notes on the Immature Stages of the Deltometopus rufipes Wielsen(ColeoptenavlticneniiGae ee, anc. 2. a: ases chy ees ai vale soot seas eee: 49 AypricH, J. M.—Proceedings of the Baltimore Meeting...:.................: 57 Dietz, W. G.—The Streptocera Group of the Dipterous Genus Tipula, DHOMEBIOSS. 5 ac Goce Sa ne CE ocoslGt.6 OS CER AR INOS Sees Ce eee rae ee 85 CLAASEN, P. W.—Life-History and Biological Notes on Chlaenius Impuncti- ROWS: GE oget ans co keno Sees 6 pw 6 5 Oo OO ee eee ee ee 95 EINES ASS: —Robpertiies ofthmelGenus rax. ..22.'. 6.566 ge shee ence ee eee ns 103 Gauan, A. B.—Some Chalcid Wasps Reared from Cecidomyid Galls.......... 159 Murr: .— Lhe Progress of Scolia mantlae Ashm... >... 0.0... 0.002.055 0. dece: 171 WHEELER, WILLIAM M.—The Ants of the Genus Metapone.................... 173 RuckeEs, HERBERT—Notes on the Male Genital System in Certain Lepidoptera. .192 WeEtcu, Paut S.—The Aquatic Adaptations of Pyrausta penitalis Grt. (LIS ONSIOVEPE Vice 208 So, Se Se Ree 8 a 213 FRACKER, S. B.—Chariesterus and its Neotropical Relatives (Coreidae LEISTRSNLOSONASIH) |. we ane, cic VER ORE Rh oe RNC ae OP resinlet 2 ae os SER. = 227 SANDERS, J. G. and DELonc, D. M.—Eight New Jassids from the Eastern Ufa BELG IS HIWEC A Se ta SR neo os & 5 Sal Aces Sees Es 3 CCLCRE Mea Panera 231 CHAMBERLIN, RaLpH V.—New Western Spiders....................200002005. 239 WALKER, E. M.—The Terminal Abdominal Structures of Orthopteroid linsecisrea Abhi ogenetiCnsiliGie serdar es meres en eae ageing cee ae = 267 ALEXANDER, C. P.—Undescribed Species of Japanese Crane-flies.............. 327 Braun, ANNETTE F.—Wing Structure of Lepidoptera and the Phylogenetic and Taxonomic Value of Certain Persistent Trichopterous Characters. ...349 DIcKerRSON, E. L. and Wetss, Harry B.—The Life-History and Early Stages of Platymetopius hyalinua Osb., a Japanese Leaf-hopper in New Jersey. . .369 PLATH, O. E.—The Prevalence of Phormia azurea Fallen (Larva Parasitic on Nestling Birds) in the Puget Sound Region and Data on Two Unde- gevrilsyacl MRE Ole Shranbilene [SIZ oni, Sete Rr eGe Roeko On 8 ot ) Olen ReECenn cea ReINS cl ici 373 TownseEnD, C. H. T.—Description of the New Species of Phormia.............379 AtpricH, J. M.—Description of a New Species of Hylemyia................... 380 Kinc, J. L.—Notes on the Biology of the Carabid Genera Brachynus, feraletiteay ane @ MIACIUS mms s feo sv hae he iors vcdis vis olelslatelacyemeslalein aig etenewy 382 DATES OF ISSUE. March, 1919, number mailed April 26, 1919. June, 1919, number mailed July 2, 1919. September, 1919, number mailed October 21, 1919. December, 1919, number mailed December 31, 1919. ANNALS OF The Entomological Society of America Volume XII DECEMBER... [9 19 Number 4 THE TERMINAL ABDOMINAL STRUCTURES OF ORTHOPTEROID INSECTS: A PHYLOGENETIC STUDY. By E. M. WALKER, Toronto, Ont. INTRODUCTION. There is still much difference of opinion concerning the inter-relations of the various orders of insects, particularly of the so-called “‘lower’’ orders, and even the question as to what are the limits of these orders is by no means a matter of general agreement. If these problems are ever to be solved in a logical manner, all the available data must be taken into account. The evidence afforded by comparative anatomy, ontogeny and palaeontology, or any facts bearing upon the subject, must all be fairly con- sidered. Although much information has been accumulated from these various sources, there are still important fields which have received much less attention than they deserve. In the field of external morphology the greatest advances have been made in the study of wing-venation, which, thanks to the classical labors of Comstock and Needham, now rests upon a thoroughly sound basis; the mouth-parts have also long been a favorite subject for investigation, while in com- paratively recent years, good progress has been made in the study of the thoracic and cervical sclerites, particularly by Snodgrass and Crampton. Our knowledge of the terminal abdominal structures, especially the genitalia and associated parts, is still, however, in a very unsatisfactory state. A constantly increasing value is being attached to them by systematists in separating genera 267 . 268 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. XII, and species, but the specialist is seldom interested in these structures except in so far as they afford good taxonomic characters in the groups with which he is concerned, and does not trouble himself to inquire into their homologies with the corresponding parts in other orders. The natural result of this is a multiplicity of terms and a great lack of unanimity in their application. The most fundamental upheaval of our generally accepted ideas of insect classification that has occurred in comparatively recent years is the system advocated by the eminent student of fossil insects, Anton Handlirsch. This system, which was first proposed in 1903,! and elaborated in 1908 in his monu- mental work, ‘‘ Die fossilen Insekten,’’ is well known, and its deviations from previously accepted views are due mainly to the study of the fossil record. His division of the old class Insecta (Hexapoda) into five classes—Collembola, Campo- deoidea, Protura, Thysanura and Pterygogenea—is not based directly upon palaeontological evidence, but on general con- siderations of structure; but the splitting up of the old order _ Orthoptera is founded upon the actual fossil record, so that the question as to whether or not the findings of comparative morphology support his views becomes one of considerable importance. The present study of the genitalia and associated parts of the groups commonly called Orthoptera is offered as a con- tribution to this subject and, at the same time, an effort has been made to clear up certain general questions on the homolo- gies of the parts concerned. Before proceeding with the discussion of the terminal abdominal structures, it may be useful to give a brief summary of Handlirsch’s views in so far as they relate to the origin and relationships of the various groups still commonly known as Orthoptera, 1. e., the Blattide, Mantide, Phasmide, Acrididz and Acrydiide (Tettigide)*, together with such other groups as may appear to be more or less closely related to them. The earliest undoubted insect remains belong to the Car- boniferous era. They are all winged insects of comparatively large size, some of them very large. Eleven orders are recog- ' Handlirsch, 1903. Zur Phylogenie der Hexapoden. Vorlaufige Mitteilung. Sitzb. K. Akad. Wiss., Bd. 112, Heft 8, Abt. 1, pp. 716-738, Taf. 1. * The Acrydiide of Most Authors. 1919] Walker: Structure of Orthopteroid Insects 269 nized by Handlirsch as belonging to this period, only one of which, the Blattoidea, is represented among the orders of the present age, although four others, viz., the Protorthoptera, Protoblattoidea, Protodonata and Protephemeroidea, appear to be the direct forbears of the Orthoptera, Mantoidea, Odonata and Plectoptera (Ephemerida) respectively. A large proportion of the insects of this period are char- acterized by their extremely generalized structure and are regarded by Handlirsch as the groups from which all other winged insects, or Pterygogenea, have descended. These are the Palaeodictyoptera. Their two pairs of ample wings were similar in size, form and venation, the latter being remarkably like the hypothetical type on which the Comstock-Needham ~ system is founded. The Protoblattoidea and Protorthoptera are independently connected with the Palaeodictyoptera by forms which differ very slightly from the latter, while, on the other hand, the most primitive Blattoidea, such as Polvyctoblatta, grade almost insensibly into the Protobiattoidea. The latter group consisted of more elongate forms than the true Blattids, having a less regularly elliptical outline, and usually a longer prothorax and a more exposed and prognathous head. Some of them, at least, had a well-developed exserted ovipositor. The Protoblattoidea died out in the Permian, where the first true Mantids appeared, these differing in venation very little from the former group. The Blattoidea are considered to be the forbears, not only of their modern representatives, but also of the Isoptera, Corrodentia (Psocide), Mallophaga and Siphunculata (Ano- plura). None of these groups are known before the Tertiary epoch, and the fossil record offers no clues as to their relation- ships. Handlirsch is probably correct with respect to the Isoptera, although they may well have arisen at a much earlier age than the Cretaceous. The Protorthoptera, which also persisted into the Permian, embraced a considerable number of families and genera. They were elongate forms, some with ambulatory legs and prognathous phasmid-like heads, while others had saltatorial hind legs like those of modern Orthoptera. An elongated ovipositor was present in some, if not all, forms(e. g., Dieconeura arcuata Scudd.) None possessed stridulatory organs. 270 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. XII, No Orthopteroid insects are known from the Trias, the insect record of which is very scanty, but true Orthoptera appear in the Lias, belonging to several groups, some of which were silent while others possessed stridulating organs. Among the former were the Locustopside, which had antenne and an ovipositor of the Tettigoniid type, but wing venation more like that of the Acridoidea, and, like the latter, lacked the stridulatory apparatus in the male tegmina. True Acridoidea are known from the lower Tertiary, so they were probably derived from the Locustopside during Cretaceous times. The stridulating forms were in part, at least, true Gryllide, and Handlirsch concludes that from primitive non- stridulating saltatorial stock two branches arose, one leading to the common ancestors of the Gryllide and Locustide (Tettigoniide), the other giving rise to the Elcanide and Locust- opside, from which latter the Acridioidea were evolved. He regards the Tridactylide as probably derivatives of the Elcanide, some of which, like Tridactylus, possessed peculiar lobe-like swimming appendages on their hind tibiz. Other orders which Handlirsch assigns to the Orthopteran stem are the Dermaptera, ‘‘ Diploglossata’’ and Thysanoptera. These groups are unknown below the Tertiary epoch, and this fact has evidently influenced Handlirsch’s judgment in his attempt to find suitable ancestors for them in the Orthoptera of the Cretaceous. The Ephemerida, Odonata and Plecoptera are considered to have no direct relationship with each other or with other. orders except through their Palaeodictyopterous ancestors. Since the publication of ‘‘ Die fossilen Insekten,’’ two new orders of insects have been discovered which must be considered in any discussion of the phylogeny of the orthopteroid groups. These are the Zoraptera, represented by a single genus, Zoro- typus Silvestri ('13)? containing five species, and the Gryllo- blattoidea, likewise represented by one genus, Grylloblatta Walker (’14)* with a single species (G. campodetformis). The former group 1s compared by its author with the Isoptera and Blattide and also with the Dermaptera (teste Caudell) and 2 Silvestri, Fil., Ballet. Lab. Zool. Gen. Agric. Portici, Vol. VII, pp. 193-209, Figs. i-xiii (1913). 3 Walker, E. M., Can. Ent., Vol. XLVI, pp. 93-99, Pl. VI (1914). 1919] Walker: Structure of Orthopteroid Insects 271 Crampton ('15)* considers them as probably members of the ‘‘ Panisoptera,’’ to which the first two named groups belong. Caudell*® likewise finds their nearest allies in the Isoptera. Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain specimens of _ Zorotypus and can therefore add nothing to what has already been written concerning it. The systematic position of Grylloblatta has been discussed in several papers by Crampton’, as well as in the original description by the present writer (loc. cit.). Its extraordinary synthetic character is indicated by the variety of orders with which it has been found to have important features in common. As regards Prof. Crampton’s opinions on the relationships of the Orthopteroid orders in general, a few words may be said here. He has expressed views on this subject in several papers (15, 16, 17, 18, 719)? and these have been modified somewhat from time to time, especially with regard to the position of Grylloblatta, which will be discussed later. His latest views appeared in a paper entitled ‘Notes on the Phylogeny of the Orthoptera,’’ and are summarized in his diagram on p. 43 (’19).? They differ from those of Handlirsch mainly in the following points: 1. The Isoptera, owing to the possession of certain primitive characters not found in living Blattids and Mantids, are rep- resented as arising, not directly from the Blattid branch, but from the base of the common stem of the Blattide and Mantide, or possibly somewhat farther along its path of development. 2. The Phasmidz arose, not from Saltatorial Orthoptera (Locustopsidez), but from near the base of the common Orthopteran stem, a view which is supported particularly by the presence of Plecopteroid characters in the primitive Phasmid, Timema californica. 3. The Dermaptera are likewise not regarded as of Orthopteran origin, but are separately derived from the common stock, from which all the pterygote orders arose. 4 Crampton, G. C. Ent. News, Vol. X XVI, p. 343 (1915). 5 Caudell, A. N. Can. Ent., Vol. L, p. 381 (1918). 6 Crampton, G. C., Ent. News, Vol. XXX, pp. 42-48, 64-65 (1919). (See also following footnote.) * Crampton, G. C., Ent. News, Vol. XXVI, pp. 337-350, Pl. XIII (1915); Ent. News, Vol. X XVII, pp. 244-258, 297-307 (1916); Can. Ent., Vol. XLIX, pp. 213-217, Fig. 9 (1917); Ent. News, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 398-413, Pl. XXVII (1917); Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., Vol. X XV, pp. 225-237 (1917); Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc., oe XIII, pp. 49-68, Pls. II-VII (1918); Ent. News, Vol. XXX, pp. 42-48; 64-72 1919). 272 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. XII, 4. The Dermaptera, Embiidina and Plecoptera are grouped together more closely than is done by Handlirsch, who recog- nized no near affinities among them. In other respects Crampton’s diagram is not incompatible with Handlirsch’s views, so far as it goes, but in regard to the relationship of other orders not included among the ‘‘Orthop- teroid’’ groups, but believed by Handlirsch to be derived from Orthopteroid ancestors (including Blattoid and Protoblattoid derivatives) his views are very different. These, however, do not concern us here. In general Crampton believes that the Plecoptera rather than the Blattoidea most nearly represent among living insects the ancestral stock from which the Orthoptera and Phasmoidea have developed, while Grylloblatta has its closest affinities among the Mantids, Embiids and Dermaptera, and its line of descent is therefore represented as coming from the ancestral stock common to the Panisoptera and Panplecoptera. This view differs somewhat from former views expressed by this same author, in which he placed Grylloblatta in his super-order ‘““Panorthoptera,’’ with the Orthoptera and Phasmoidea. The position of this important annectant form will be further discussed at a later stage. THE TERMINAL ABDOMINAL STRUCTURES. Two papers by Crampton (’17 and ’18)® have recently appeared, in which these structures in the more primitive orders are discussed from the comparative standpoint. In the earlier paper, which deals with the female, the author states that ‘‘the neck and cervical structures furnish far more definite characters for grouping these insects than the terminal abdominal structures of the female do,’’ and in another paper already cited (19, p. 64), he emphasizes the phylogenetic importance of the former structures on account of their being remarkably constant within an order or superorder and less subject to such variations as depend upon changes of function. While admitting the general truth of this statement, it should be kept in mind that such characters as were present in the common ancestors of all insects may be inherited by some of 8 Crampton, G. C., Jour. N. Y. Ent. Soc., Vol. XXV, No. 4, Pls. XVI,.XVII (1917); Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc., Vol. XIII, pp. 49-68, Pls. 2-7 (1918). ' 1919] Walker: Structure of Orthopteroid Insects 273 the members of any of the orders, and that they may therefore be of little phylogenetic value except in determining the primitive form of the structure concerned or in deciding which forms in a particular group are its most primitive members. Specialized characters, when the factor of convergence can be eliminated, are often of more value than primitive ones, particularly in complex structures where an opportunity for detailed com- parison is present. For instance, the arrangement of the mouth-parts of the Diptera or the Lepidoptera is so distinctive that these structures alone serve as recognition marks of these orders. It is largely this feature which renders wing-venation so useful in phylogenetic studies of insects, and although I should not attribute the same value to the genitalia, I do claim that they are of great phylogenetic importance when studied in detail; and in this connection I may point out that Prof. Crampton’s studies of the thoracic and cervical sclerites are very much more thorough than those of the genitalia. The chitinous parts of the genitalia are in large measure internal structures and unless their internal relations are carefully investigated one is certain to be led to false deductions. In another recent paper by Dr. A. G. Newell ('18)* the view is held that the gonapophyses in both sexes represent three pairs of serial appendages or limbs, belonging to the 8th, 9th and 10th abdominal segments; and an attempt is made to identify these appendages in both sexes of all the orders. Although a useful summary of the literature dealing with the subject of insect genitalia is given, the investigation itself betrays a lack of grasp of the fundamental principles involved, and the facts of comparative morphology and development as given in the bibliography cited appear to have been almost entirely ignored. The material on which the present study is based was obtained from various sources. For the gift or loan of speci- mens, indispensable to the work, I am especially indebted to the following gentlemen, to whom I take pleasure in expressing my most sincere thanks: Prof. G. C. Crampton, Dr. C. Gordon Hewitt, Dr. N. Banks, Dr. L. O. Howard, Mr. Thos. E. Snyder, Mr. Morgan Hebard and Mr. W. Downes. 9 Newell, Anna Grace, Annals Ent. Soc. Am., Vol. XI, No. 2, pp. 109-142, Pls. IV-XVI. 274 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. XII, Part I. THE TERMINAL ABDOMINAL STRUCTURES OF THE FEMALE. The female external genitalia of a typical generalized Pterygote insect (e. g., Ceuthophilus, Figs. 1-4), consist of the vulva or genital aperture, situated at or near the posterior end of the eighth abdominal sternum and usually protected by a backward prolongation of the latter (in some cases the seventh sternum), the subgenital plate (st. 8); and three pairs of processes, the gonapophyses or valvule, which co-operate to form the ovipositor. These valvule are distinguished, from their usual positions, as the ventral, dorsal and inner valvule (valves) or the anterior, lateral and posterior gonapophyses, respectively. The ventral valvule arise primitively from the posterior margin of the eighth sternum, though often actually from the intersternal membrane between segments eight and nine; the dorsal and inner valvule from the ninth sternum, primitively also from the posterior margin. The ventral valvule (vv) consist of a shorter basal segment, ‘the basivalvula (Crampton, '17)!° and a longer shaft. The basivalvula (bs) is usually chitinized only ventrally or ventro- laterally, if at all, the shaft externally, when a functional structure, but becoming partly or entirely membranous when the ovipositor is degenerate. The dorsal valvule (vd) may be more or less distinctly separable into a broad proximal portion and a longer, more slender distal part, but there is no line of demarcation between these parts and nothing comparable to the basivalvule; the parts so designated by Crampton being in some cases the lateral part of the ninth sternum (or valvifer, vide inf.)"; in other cases merely the basal part of the valvula itself,!? the appearance of a suture being due to parts beneath showing through the valve. The inner valvule (vi) are enclosed by the other two pairs and are usually the shortest pair. They commonly enclose or roof over, the passage through which the eggs are passed out 10 Crampton, Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., Vol. XXV, p. 2386 (1917). Also termed “‘Basalstuck’’ (Van der Weele, Tijd. voor Ent., Deel XLIX, pp. 99-198, Pls. 1-3, ey and ‘‘basal plate’’ (Walker, Univ. of Toronto Studies, Biol. Ser., No. 11, mM Crampton, op. cit., Pl. XVI, Fig. 7; Pl. XVII, Fig. 12. 12 Crampton, op. cit., Pl. XVI, Figs. 1, 6; Pl. XVII, Fig. 10. 1919] Walker: Structure of Orthopteroid Insects 275 in oviposition. Very frequently the inner valves are connected from the base distad to a varying extent by a fold of integument, which may be termed the zntervalvular membrane (im). The inner valvule are generally chitinized laterally and these hardened parts or rami (rm) are connected by a strengthening bar or pons valvularum (p) across the membrane, or the entire fold may be chitinized dorsally. In the former case it is some- times convenient to distinguish proximal and distal portions _of the rami according to their position in relation to the pons. Like the ventral valvule, the dorsal and inner pair may be largely or wholly membranous when functionally degenerate. Between the bases of the dorsal valvule and often closely connected or even fused with them, is a median sclerite, the superior intervalvula (sv). It bears a median vertical apodeme for the attachment of important muscles connected with the movements of the ovipositor, and its outer surface is continuous below with the upper surface of the intervalvular membrane. In some forms, such as Mantis and Stagmomantis, the rami of the inner valves may be fused with this plate. Another median sclerite, the inferior intervalvula (iv), is found on the ventral surface of the base of the intervalvular membrane. With the inferior intervalvula the rami of the inner valvule are frequently connected, as in the Tettigoniide and Acridide, and they are always connected more or less closely with a strong ventral process from the base of each dorsal valvula, which may be termed the inferior apophysis (iap).