CERAMBYCID^ 385 



abrupt shining thoracic umbo, but its derivation from the discoideus 

 type is sufficiently evident. I am uncertain whether the example 

 described above as quinguemaculatus Hald., really represents that 

 species, as there is a very fine feeble antennal annulation perhaps 

 overlooked by LeConte; the size is much smaller, though this is 

 not at all significant in view of the very great variation in size 

 characterizing most of the species, but the locality is far removed 

 from that of the type of the species, which is said by LeConte to be 

 Sault St. Marie, Michigan. I have omitted texanus Horn, not hav- 

 ing seen a specimen ; it is said to be allied to quinguemaculatus but 

 with red scape and femora; without much doubt it is a valid species, 

 not at all closely allied to qidnqiiemaculatus but rather to be asso- 

 ciated with the femoratus group, the gradually formed thoracic 

 umbo not being a character of so great value as supposed, consider- 

 ing the diversity of this part in the discoideus group, which, as 

 shown by other more general features, is a perfectly natural sec- 

 tion of the genus. Mancus Lee., should come in the table immedi- 

 ately after omissus, from which it differs in its annulate antennae. 

 It is probable that collaris Horn, which I have not seen but which 

 is very aberrant in the opaque thoracic umbo, would be best placed 

 in the femoratus group and near that species in the table ; it is from 

 New Mexico. Oregonensis and basalis of LeConte, may be placed 

 at the end of the table as requiring further study; the first, at least,, 

 is certainly not represented in my material, and it is improbable 

 that either ruber, atrisetosus or spissicornis, the only available ones 

 in this connection, can be the same as basalis, because of the very 

 strong and abruptly elevated thoracic umbo. Humeralis is unique 

 in the genus by reason of the very remarkable abruptly tumid 

 black elytral humeri, which, even if aberrational in the single 

 type, would not invalidate the species, as the prothorax is much 

 broader and more transverse and the head larger than in 

 tetrophthalmus; it is also more parallel and very much more 

 strongly punctured than tetrophthalmus Forst.* Western examples 

 of the latter species are a little larger, more elongate and more punc- 



* I here follow LeConte in writing tetrophthalmus and not tetra -iphthalmus, as given 

 by Horn and followed by Bates. Specific words can be altered to accord with ety- 

 mological usage, which however is not the case with generic words, the latter being 

 unalterable. 



T. L. Casey, Mem. Col. IV, Nov. 1913. 



