CERAMBYCID^E 255 



also in being subsinuately parallel from base to apical third, where 

 the somewhat protuberant sides are very evenly rounded, without 

 trace of denticle; scutellum similar; elytra longer, two-thirds longer 

 than wide, one-half wider than the prothorax, not dehiscent, the 

 sides distinctly converging and feebly arcuate from the humeri to 

 the apex, which is conjointly rather narrowly and subcircularly 

 rounded, the punctures coarse and rather shallow as in the preceding 

 though much less close-set; tarsi very slender, much shorter, the 

 posterior scarcely two-thirds as long as the tibiae. Length (cf ) 21.5 

 mm.; width 8.8 mm. Colorado, J. F. Kemp debiliceps n. sp. 



It is assumed, as intimated above, that the pronotum of the male 

 type of Integra is glabrous, by which character it differs from the 

 male of any other known species. According to Say, the dense 

 pubescence of the male pronotum of emarginata is wanting in the 

 female, but even this statement apparently lacks any more recent 

 verification. Admitting this sexual disparity in the thoracic 

 pubescence however, I do not think that innocua Lee., can be the 

 female of emarginata, as conjectured by LeConte, because there is 

 no indication of sexual differences in the lateral teeth of the pro- 

 thorax anywhere among our other Prionini. It is for this reason 

 that I assume without hesitation that pubicollis is distinct from 

 emarginata, though having the same long dense pronotal vestiture, 

 because the broadly rounded sides of the prothorax afford not the 

 slightest suggestion of the lateral submedian tooth of emarginata, 

 which is so pronounced as to have been especially mentioned by 

 both Say and LeConte and plainly evident in the drawing of that 

 species given by LeConte in his paper on the Coleoptera of Kansas. 

 There is evidence that the species of Homcesthesis are rather numer- 

 ous though very rare in individuals, and, as dibiliceps is widely 

 different from pubicollis, this is all the more reason for believing that 

 the type of pubicollis is not in any way an aberrant example of 

 emarginata. 



I have been unable to find any decided differences in the separa- 

 tion of the hind coxae, such as mentioned by LeConte (Class. Col. 

 N. A., p. 274) in the case of certain females, anywhere among our 

 Prionini. The coxae may vary slightly in distance asunder but 

 the intercoxal process always has the same acutely angulate form. 

 Perhaps the remark applies wholly to the genus IIom<zsthesis, of 

 which I have not seen the female, this also being true of Prionina, 

 which is closer to Homcesthesis than to Prionus. 



