BABIA.—URODERA. 8) 
exactly resembles Urodera crucifera, Lac., in the elytral pattern, except in the non- 
prolongation of the black band along the suture. ‘The thorax is twice as broad as long ; 
its anterior margin is strongly produced in front, but the posterior margin is nearly 
straight at the sides and but feebly lobed (in which the species differs therefore from 
the genus Urodera) ; the surface is entirely impunctate, and in some specimens of a 
bronze tint; and the lateral margin is also impunctate (and not rugose, as is generally 
the case). The broad black elytral band does not extend in some specimens to the 
sides, and the anterior margin of this band is concave near the suture. ‘The prosternum 
is extremely narrow. | 
B. chiriquensis differs from B. distinguenda in the uninterrupted fulvous basal band 
of the elytra, this band extending to the suture in the present species. 
STEREOMA (p. 34). 
Stereoma anchoralis (p. 34). 
To the locality given, add :—Braziu (coll. Jacoby). 
I think it is somewhat doubtful whether the locality, “ Mexico,” given by Lacordaire 
is the true habitat of this species. Amongst the very large amount of material from 
Central America I have had for examination, not a single example of this propor- 
tionately large-sized insect has been found; some years ago, however, I received from 
Herr F. Baden of Altona a single specimen answering perfectly to Lacordaire’s 
description of the variety of S. anchoralis, and this was labelled ‘ Brazil.” 
URODERA (p. 34). 
Urodera crucifera (p. 35). 
To the locality given, add :—-Mzxico, Ventanas in Durango, Monterey in Nuevo Leon, 
Tacambaro, Huetamo in Michoacan, Chilpancingo, Iguala in Guerrero, Tapachula in 
Chiapas (Hége), Oaxaca, Etla, Vera Cruz (Sallé), Cuernavaca (H. H. Smith), Temax in 
North Yucatan (Gaumer); Nicaraeva, Chontales (Belt). 
A long and careful examination of great numbers of specimens has convinced me 
that no single character can be pointed out to distinguish with certainty U. crucifera 
from U. chevrolati and U. hépfneri, Lac. ; and I much doubt whether the two latter are 
‘anything more than varieties of the first-mentioned species. If the extreme forms 
with differently-shaped thorax and elytral markings are placed side by side, they may 
be supposed to represent distinct species; but an examination of the intermediate 
varieties proves the inutility of separating them. Our examples vary to such a degree 
that they might with equal propriety be referred to either of the three above-named 
species described by Lacordaire; neither the more or less transversely-shaped thorax 
nor the narrower or wider elytral band is a guide for specific separation. I provisionally 
retain Lacordaire’s species as distinct; but the real specific limit of these insects can 
only be satisfactorily settled by a study of their life-history. 
