CERAMBYCID/E 331 



very convincingly. In variolata the head is relatively larger than 

 in the other two, andfrigida is blacker, as well as shorter and broader 

 in form; other divergencies may be inferred from the descriptions. 

 In lentiginosa the shorter basal joint of the hind tarsi is doubtless 

 due to some extent to the female sex of the type and in the male 

 it is probably a little longer; but this species is very distinct in 

 vestiture, maculation and in other features.* 



Urographis Horn. 



We now come to a part of the series in which the genera are con- 

 fused, owing in considerable part to the fact that the Graphisurus 

 pusillus of Kirby had, before the discussion of it by G. H. Horn 

 (Tr. Am. Ent. Soc., 1880, p. 128), been identified solely by surmise. 

 LeConte made it a synonym of Cerambyx fasciatus Degeer, which 

 would have given the name Graphisurus to the genus containing 

 that species and triangulifer Hald. Dr. Horn later (1. c.) gave closer 

 study to Kirby's description and came to the conclusion that pusillus 

 was the same as Leiopus biguttatus Lee., which conclusion may or 

 may not be correct. Mr. Gahan has recently erected the genus 

 Ceratogr aphis for Leiopus biguttatus Lee. 



The writer lately came into possession, through the kindness of 

 Mr. C. A. Frost, of a series of small specimens, transmitted under 

 the name Acanthocinus obsoletus. A mere casual glance sufficed to 

 show that they were not obsoletus, although perfectly congeneric, 

 being much smaller, narrower and with smaller, closer elytral 

 punctures toward base. Now on examining Dr. Horn's transcrip- 

 tion of Kirby's diagnosis of pusillus, four facts and four only are to 

 be seriously considered, for the others would fit any one of half a 

 dozen species in several genera. These four determinative state- 

 ments are (i) position of the thoracic spines "toward base," (2) 

 the negative evidence afforded by failure to mention any erect 

 elytral setae, (3) the rounded apices of the elytra and (4) the size of 

 the body 4^ lines or 8.5 mm. All of these statements fit perfectly 

 the series sent me by Mr. Frost, taken by him at Monmouth, 

 Maine, and I have no hesitation in definitely deciding that they 



* Many of the statements made by Hamilton in his review of Hyperplatys (Tr. Am. 

 Ent. Soc., 1896, p. 129) are incorrect; furthermore he did not identify a single species 

 correctly, excepting the very distinct californica and femoralis, and in these he over- 

 looked the most important specific characters. 



