HlSTERID.E 245 



radiila Mars., said by the author to be from Cafraria and to have 

 been communicated by Boheman. For some unexplained reason, 

 the locality has been changed by Mr. Lewis to California. There 

 is no similar species found in California, so far as known to me, 

 and its characters are such as to indicate that it has no close rela- 

 tionship with conjuncta and geminata not even subgenerically. 



Paromalus Erichs. 



The type of this genus is the Ulster cequalis of Say. Two allied 

 forms, Paromalus affinis and estriatns , were subsequently described 

 by LeConte. Careful study of the two dozen specimens in my 

 collection, from Pennsylvania to North Carolina and westward to 

 Colorado, reveals some interesting facts. The pygidium in thirteen 

 specimens, which have a materially smaller size and rather narrower 

 outline on the whole, is rather small, and virtually its entire surface 

 is pervaded by very deep abrupt erosions, varying greatly in degree 

 of development, while the other eleven have a larger, broader and 

 more convex pygidium, which is perfectly smooth and finely punc- 

 tate, except two very feeble transverse impressions at base and 

 rarely a very few irregular discal scratches. From the protruded 

 genitalia visible in two examples, it is evident that the smaller 

 specimens, with the smaller, more triangular and very deeply 

 sculptured pygidium, are females and not males as generally con- 

 sidered. Furthermore, I am unable to distinguish more than a 

 single species, and conclude that estriatus is a synonym founded 

 upon smaller specimens, several of these at hand being but .1 inch, 

 as stated by LeConte, and that affinis is also a synonym. In 

 view of the very close relationship, which in any event is known to 

 exist between cequalis and affinis, the wide separation of these 

 names in the Bickhardt list, the latter coming under a different 

 subgeneric head, is unaccountable. There are many other species 

 besides cequalis, placed under typical Paromalus by Mr. Lewis, 

 nearly all of them East Indian, Australian or African. All our 

 other species, now listed under Paromalus, are placed in a special 

 subgenus by Mr. Lewis but, in view of the rather radical differences 

 in the form and convexity of the body and absence of the well 

 developed parallel prosternal lines of typical Paromalus, it would not 

 be far amiss to consider it a genus as follows : 



