HYLESINUS.—DENDROSINUS. 155 
number of American species described, it appears to be less well reeresented in that. 
continent than in the Palearctic region. There is only just sufficient evidence to 
warrant its inclusion in the list of Central-American genera. 
1. Hylesinus, sp. 
Hab. Mexico, Yucatan (coll. Chapuis). 
The specimen referred to stands in Chapuis’s collection under the MS. name of 
H. puellus. It is quite distinct from any known North-American species, and many of 
its characteristics of colour and sculpture can be well recognized. But it is proposed 
to follow Chapuis’s example in leaving it undescribed, as the insect has been much 
injured and crushed and certainly is not fit for the type of a species *. 
DENDROSINUS. 
Dendrosinus, Chapuis, Syn. Scol. p. 28 (Mém. Soc. Liége, 1873, p. 236). 
This genus is distinguished from Hylesinus by the antennal club, which is flattened, 
orbicular or oblong, with the apex obtusely rounded or truncate. It is marked 
towards the base with three pilose sutures; the basal joints are very short, transverse, 
and shining, the fourth joint forms the apical two-thirds of the club and is entirely 
pubescent. Head not rostrate, large; funiculus short, 7-jointed, the joints scarcely 
increasing in size; eyes elongate oblong. Prothorax not margined at the sides, 
strongly produced backwards between the bases of the elytra, which are rounded and 
elevated. Scutellum not depressed. Prosternum with a wide transverse process 
between the anterior coxe. Mesosternum vertical, hidden. Metasternum very short. 
Abdominal segments nearly equal in length, the apical margin of the third produced 
at the lateral angles; intercoxal process wide and rounded at apex. Anterior and 
middle pairs of coxe widely separated. ‘Tibie broadly dilated and truncate at apex, 
their upper margin with two or three spines. Tarsi short, the 3rd joint bilobed. 
The genus shows some affinity with Spherotrypes, Blandf., from India and Japan, 
but is without the bipartite eyes and prothoracic side-margin of the latter. The species 
appear to be few in number and are extremely alike in appearance. Those, however, 
which I have seen present on close examination well-marked points of difference, and 
as the species can be briefly diagnosed I describe those known to me. It should be 
added that the specimens before me do not show any external sexual characters. 
* There are two specimens of a Hylesinus labelled ‘“ Mexico” in my collection, from that of A. Deyrolle, 
which I cannot distinguish in any way from H. fraxini, Panz., var. varius, Fabr. As the latter species is not 
yet known to occur in North America, further confirmation is required of its existence in Mexico. 
XX 2 
