Thanks for that! Indeed, not all are created equal and "my" female S. lineatum seems to be a pretty colourful individual. It is neat to see how some females look very male-like in coloration for S. grossa/grossum.

Probably "grossa" is the correct spelling; same goes for "lineata" vs. "lineatum". However, entomologists as a group seem to be bad at matching genders of species and genus names (even though they are supposed to), especially when they shift things around . It is confusing trying to get Latin endings correct, and there is a tendency just to use whatever ending the first author of the name used.

This is an interesting read, but I don't have a digital copy of it yet.

It has been bookmarked and I will try to get it through work (I believe we may have a subscription to JStor).
As for the gender matching of Latin binomials, I have noticed this before in other cases (such as in Odonata, where I am more somewhat more comfortable), but this may open quite a can of worms, so to speak. As French (my mother tongue) is mainly of Latin origin, this kind of thing does sometimes tend to sound alarm bells in my brain more readily, at least when I am aware enough of what things would/should be in Latin (I am no expert in Latin, but there are many similarities to French). So, if it is a usage thing, perhaps if we agree to use the proper gender whenever we know it is appropriate, such as in "Stethophyma lineata" here on Bug Guide, we could get the ball rolling in some of the cases. However, I would need to do a little homework to know whether "gracile" (gender neutral) is in proper gender accord with Stethophyma (F?). Methinks it may need to be "gracilis" (M/F), but I am not sure I understand the way that is all supposed to work.

She is huge, the size of a big Two-striped Grasshopper and that is what I thought she was at first when I saw her in my net, given that they are nearby. She is indeed very nicely decked out as well! I will try to find some more and see if any look more like Mr Sikes' individual. I think it will be interesting at some point to study the DNA from "related species" in Eurasia and North America and see what the folks in the know about DNA have to say about their relationship as well. You may be right. It sure is hard to tell them apart from their "looks", at this point.

Incidentally, I found many more "Chorthippus affinis brunneus" at my new workplace (Fundy National Park, New Brunswick) this summer, a location some 200 km from my former location (Kouchibouguac National Park), and have kept more specimens, as more fresh ones are needed for DNA analysis to establish the species, although the ones collected last year were definitely assigned to the Genus Chorthippus, albeit one of three European species (not definitively brunneus). I will post images from this summer SOON and I will forward you the e-mail from Dr. Don McAlpine which explains where things are with that. This species is widespread and very common in southern New Brunswick, that much is certain. I have found it at five more locations this year.