CETONIIN/E 307 



broad, each with two strong convex costae and a feebler and narrower 

 one externally, the sutural costa becoming sharply cariniform pos- 

 teriorly, the carinae forming each a thin, vertically lamellate small 

 tooth at apex; punctures shallow and arcuate but distinct through- 

 out, forming two series intercostally, with a few others scattered 

 between these series; on the flanks the punctures are sparse and less 

 arcuate; at apex there are many wavy incised lines; sterna with rather 

 close-set coarse transverse wavy incised lines; two lower teeth of the 

 anterior tibia? large, united at base, the upper tooth smaller and 

 much more distant; hind tarsi almost as thick and short as in 

 lesueuri. Length (9) 16.5 mm.; width 9.5 mm. Chiriqui. 



*comminuta n. sp. 



Lesueuri is said by Mr. Bates to be the female of latreillei; I have 

 no means of confirming this interesting statement, which would 

 constitute of lesueuri a very marked exception in the genus. Com- 

 minuta is evidently related to westermanni G. & P., but, according 

 to the description of Burmeister, it differs in having distinctly and 

 arcuately punctate elytra, and there is no appearance anywhere of 

 a "duvet jaunatre tres-serre" at any part of the body, as stated by 

 Gory and Percheron in their description of westermanni. I am 

 unable to understand what Dr. Horn could have had in hand when 

 he measured 20 mm. as the length of a specimen of fulgida (Pr. 

 Am. Phil. Soc., 1880, p. 405); the measure is probably in gross 

 error; that author also confused two distinct southern species 

 with fulgida, which were subsequently described by Fall. 



To this group apparently belongs, also, the species described by 

 LeConte under the name calif ornica (New Species, 1863, p. 80), 

 but some doubt attaches to the habitat of the unique type; it is 

 certainly not Californian, though possibly Lower Californian, and, 

 as the description agrees in almost every detail with that of Erirhipis 

 subguttata Burm., I am of the opinion that it is Mexican and a 

 synonym of subguttata. But the locality of the type of subguttata 

 seems also to be somewhat doubtful, as it is founded on a specimen 

 purchased by Burmeister in London, and the species was not in- 

 cluded among the material described or catalogued in the Biologia, 

 Mr. Bates simply recording it on the authority of Burmeister. 

 Dr. Horn suspected that it might be East Indian, and the name 

 does not occur in the Henshaw list. I am not aware of any more 

 recent allusion to the species and further consideration of it at the 

 present time seems unnecessary. It somewhat resembles fulgida 

 and is bright green, opaque above, shining beneath, the sides and 



