NOTES AND CORRECTIONS 415 



the pygidium mutually similar; beyond the middle it is centrally 

 flattened in a small area, the surface thence rather rapidly sloping 

 toward the apical parts, with a fine cariniform median line extend- 

 ing from the small flattened area to the apex. I do not know to 

 what extent these singular and sharply diversified pygidial charac- 

 ters may be due to sex. 



CERAMBYCID^: 



The genus Malthophia Csy. (Mem. Col., Ill, p. 308), is either 

 the same as Idcemea Horn or closely allied, but on comparing the 

 male type of M. oculata with Mr. Fall's description of Idcemea cali- 

 fornica .(Occ. Papers, Cal. Acad., VIII, p. 256), which seemed at 

 first might be identical, I find that in oculata the prothorax is tuber- 

 culate at the sides, well behind and not "at the middle" and the 

 elytra are only one-half wider than the prothorax, and not "three- 

 fourths wider." Otherwise there seems to be close agreement, ex- 

 cept that californica is materially larger 13 to 16 mm. and not 

 10 mm. as in oculata. Having become involved in a serious over- 

 sight in this matter, it is however somewhat compensating to find 

 that, under more modern conceptions as shown in the catalogue of 

 Aurivillius, Idcemea, Methia and other related genera should form 

 part of the series near Achryson. It did not occur to me to look for 

 Malthophia among the Lamiids. At all events, we have here an 

 absolutely independent estimate of its systematic position, confirm- 

 ing that of Aurivillius. It is furthermore highly probable that 

 Malthophia, as represented by californica and oculata, is not exactly 

 the same generically as Idcemea Horn that is judging by the devel- 

 opment of the eyes and antennae. 



Geropa cequicollis Csy. (1. c., p. 306), is evidently a synonym of 

 Achryson concolor Lee. The genus Geropa differs, however, from 

 Achryson, as represented by surinamum, in some important partic- 

 ulars besides the straight and elongate-oval and not arcuate basal 

 joint of the antennae, truncate and not bisinuate thoracic base, 

 and rounded and not spinose elytral apices; it differs very strongly 

 in general habitus and should be regarded as valid. 



Of Pogonocherus salicicola Csy. (Mem. Col., IV, p. 347), I have 

 recently received a second specimen from Mr. Frost, agreeing per- 

 fectly with the type and confirming the species as amply valid and 



