H4 MEMOIRS ON THE COLEOPTERA 



The species named fugitans in the table came to me under the 

 above name, but does not agree well with LeConte's short descrip- 

 tion ; the form in fugitans is much shorter and more depressed than 

 in cautus, the hind angles of the prothorax rather broadly rounded 

 and the legs varicolored rufous, with black femora. The elytral 

 sinus, also, while feeble, is quite evident and the size is much 

 smaller. It may be placed next to fugitans for the present. 



The specimen serving for the description of innocuus Lee., in 

 the table, is doubtless immature, as the body is said to be black, 

 with the tibiae and tarsi obscure ferruginous, in the original female 

 type of that species, leaving it to be inferred that the femora are 

 dark; the legs in the example described above are absolutely clear 

 and pale flavo-ferruginous throughout. However, as it is from 

 the same locality and the other characters agree, I suppose that it 

 is properly identified. 



Gemmeus is a remarkably aberrant species and might with some 

 propriety form a group by itself; the frontal foveae, elytral striation 

 and general coloration are all notably distinctive. 



The name viduus was originally assigned as a cabinet name by 

 LeConte to a New Jersey species, here apparently described under 

 the name recisus, but, as no description was given, this original 

 viduus must be considered a purely manuscript name; that it was 

 evidently so regarded by LeConte himself is proved by the fact 

 that he subsequently (Proc. Acad. Phila., 1865, p. 103) gave the 

 name to another quite different species from Illinois. The language 

 used in coarse print remarks under the description of fallax (Col. 

 Kansas, p. 3) is this: "A very similar nondescript species from 

 New Jersey was kindly given me by Mr. Guex; it differs chiefly 

 by the thorax being broader, with the sides less rounded and less 

 narrowed anteriorly. I have named it H. viduus." It is easy to 

 see that this was not intended in any way as a description, and I 

 therefore have to differ with Chaudoir (Rev. Mag. Zool., 1868, 

 p. 20) in his contention that the second viduus should have its 

 name changed because of preoccupation. Furthermore, the few 

 characters given to distinguish the original viduus from fallax, 

 seem to be inaccurate; at any rate they do not apply in any way 

 to recisus. 



