HARPALIN/E 269 



This species is also remarkably distinct in its very short and strongly, 

 posteriorly inflated elytra.* 



A single example of a South African species, which I took at 

 Wellington, near Cape Town, much more closely resembles these 

 American forms than it does the European species of the meridianus 

 type; so I do not feel disposed to suggest a subgeneric name for 

 our species, although they are so strikingly divergent in habitus 

 from the normal forms of the genus. 



Stenolophus Dej. 



This is one of the largest genera of the Acupalpini and holds 

 rather closely to a fixed type throughout all the American and such 

 of the European species as I have had opportunity to examine. 

 The head is usually moderate in size, the eyes well developed and 

 rather prominent as a rule, the frontal fovese deep and oblique, 

 though generally not prolonged to the eyes and the antennae are 

 always rather long and slender, with the usual two glabrous basal 

 joints of the subfamily. The mandibles are short and thick, their 

 apices finely hooked and each has on the inner margin behind the 

 middle a small and sometimes very acute tooth. The notch of the 

 mentum is deep and evenly sinuate and the ligula is long, gradually 

 somewhat expanded apically, the paraglossae adherent about to its 

 tip and with their outer angle prolonged into a process that fre- 

 quently curls inward. The labial palpi are long, rather slender, 

 with the second joint barely visibly shorter than the third and 

 bearing three very long setae, two near the middle of the anterior 

 margin and one on the posterior side near the apex; the third joint 

 is gradually and moderately acuminate; the last joint of the maxil- 



* The measurements published by LeConte of Acupalpus hydropicus (3 mm.) and 

 Goniolophus reclangulus (3-3.25 mm.), are plainly excessive and, as I have noted many 

 other overdrawn measurements of the same kind, it seems certain that that author 

 unconsciously fell into manipulative methods giving erroneous results. If the object 

 to be measured be held above the scale, its projected image on the scale will cover more 

 units of length than the actuality, in proportion to the distance between the scale and 

 the object. In making these measurements care should be taken to place the scale 

 close to the object and in such a way that both scale and object shall be at as nearly 

 the same distance from the eye as possible, and as far away from the eye as the limits 

 of distinct vision will permit. It seems a rather trivial point to allude to especially, but, 

 as may be seen, results that do not depict the truth in nature are often recorded, which 

 is always to be deplored in work supposed to be of permanent scientific value. 



