ClCINDELID^: 7 



In recent months I have received large and important accessions 

 of material in Omus from Mr. Nunenmacher and Mrs. Charles 

 Fuchs, collected in many parts of California and Oregon, re- 

 sulting in very substantial increase of the known species and sub- 

 species, particularly in the horni group.* In distributing these new 

 forms, the subgeneric and group divisions of my general revision 

 (Mem. Col., V, pp. 1-2) are adhered to, excepting that group VII 

 of Omus proper is divided to form two groups, having lewis and 

 horni respectively as type forms. The nature of the elytral sculp- 

 ture is so radically different as to demand this division, the usually 

 very coarse punctures of the horni group always being accompanied 

 each by a sharp anterior granule, which is entirely obsolete 

 in the Icevis group. The latter group is very isolated in the 

 general series, but the horni group has marked affiliation with 

 sequoiarum and related forms, so that it is difficult at times to assign 

 species properly. The best general differential feature resides 

 probably in the sculpture of the pronotum, there always being a 

 distinct vermiculate rugulosity throughout in the sequoiarum group, 

 sometimes almost as strong as in the sea-coast calif ornicus group, 

 which sculpture becomes either wholly obsolete or very feebly 

 marked in the numerous allies of horni. Possibly vandykei should 

 form another group, in which case the total number of groups would 

 be nine. 



Subgenus Megomus Csy. 



Omus dejeani Rche., the type of this subgenus, differs very strongly 

 in habitus from the multitudinous forms of Omus proper, as typi- 

 fied by californicus. No modifications of the dejeani type have 

 been announced hitherto, but some feebly defined subordinates 

 exist, of which I note the two following: 



Omus dejeani ssp. robustus nov. -Form very stout, deep black, 

 without metallic lustre; head and prothorax nearly as in dejeani, the 

 elytra relatively shorter, less oval or with more marked humeri and simi- 



* Mrs. Fuchs was kind enough to allow me to purchase the set of Omus in the col- 

 lection of her late husband, including the original type of Omus ambiguus Schpp. In 

 comparing this type with my assumed representative of the species, I find complete 

 concordance, which is very gratifying. I now have three examples of that species. 

 The type of 0. intermedius Leng, which I had been given to understand was in the 

 Fuchs collection, could not be found; several different forms figured under that name, 

 none however distinguished in any way as a type. 



