218 MALACODERMATA. 
3. Dinoderus substriatus. 
Dinoderus substriatus, Payk. Fn. Suec. ii. p. 142 (Apate); Jacq. Duval, Gen. Col. iii. t. 56. f. 280; 
Perris, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1862, p. 209, t. 6. f. 578-586; Horn, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 1878, 
p. 549. 
Hab. Evrope; Asta; Cutna; Burman; New Guinea, Dorey (Wallace); CELEBES 
(Wallace) ; West Arrica; North America, Canada, United States.—Honpuras (Sadlé 
coll.) —Soutn America; Braziu. 
The above localities show this to be another cosmopolitan species. It does not, 
however, appear to be injurious or to be met with in numbers; in our own country it 
is decidedly of rare occurrence. A single specimen is all we have seen from Central 
America at present. It may be recognized by two oblique foveee on the base of the 
thorax, and by the close and confused puncturing, which on the dorsal region has a 
substriate look. 
TETRAPRIOCERA. 
Tetrapriocera, Horn, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 1878, p. 544. 
_ Xylopertha (pars), Lac. Gen. des Col. iv. p. 539. 
Easily recognized by the four-jointed club and very short third to seventh joints, 
which are obliquely transverse. But one species is known to me; it is plainly that 
described by Dr. Horn, but had been previously described and figured by Olivier. 
1. Tetrapriocera longicornis. (‘Tab. X. fig. 20.) 
Apate longicornis, Oliv. Ent. iv. 77, p. 15+, t. 8. f. 18, a-c; Gemm. & Har. Cat. Col. p. 1790’. 
Tetrapriocera swartzi, Horn, Proce. Am. Phil. Soc. 1878, p. 545 °. 
Hab. North America, Florida?.—Mexico, Cordova, Teapa, Tuxtla (Sad/é); Brivisa 
Honvuras (Blancaneaux); Guatemata, El Reposo, Zapote, Torola, Rio Maria Linda 
(Champion) ; Nicaracva (coll. Sallé), Chontales (Janson); Costa Rica, Cache (Rogers) ; 
Panama, Bugaba (Champion).—West-Inpia IsLanDs, Haiti!?°, Guadeloupe; Souts 
America, Brazil (coll. Gorh.). 
The specimen figured is from Bugaba. 
Fam. CIOIDZ. 
This family is of such small extent that it might form a section of the Ptinides but 
that it is in some respects more strongly differentiated than are the Bostrychide, and 
so to sink them in one or other of the other families is simply to ignore those 
important distinctions which have seemed sufficient to some coleopterists to justify 
their being placed in quite another of the larger aggregates, and would open the 
question of whether Lyctus could be retained here. 
