1919.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 95 



The indication of the median fastigial carina in the female is 

 as frequent as in the male, but it is generally, when present, less 

 decided than in the other sex. When seen from the lateral aspect 

 the fastigio-facial angle is always well rounded in the female, and 

 rather narrowly, but still appreciably, rounded in the male. This 

 is, in fact, one of the chief distinguishing features of the species. 

 There is quite a little variation in the basal form of the eye, this 

 ranging from ovoid-elliptical to narrowly elongate ovoid. The 

 pronotum shows some little variation in the relative proportions 

 of the dorsum of the prozona and metazona. The caudal margin 

 of the disk of the pronotum is always angulate, broadly obtuse, 

 varying slightly in its degree. The relative breadth to length of 

 the pronotum shows a negligible amount of variation. 



We have made a count of the caudal tibial spines of ten males 

 and seven females, comprising the series from Navasota, Texas, 

 with the following results: 



Extremes in numbers on external margin ' 18-22 



Extremes in numbers on internal margin 15-18 



Average number on external margin 20 



Average number on internal margin 16 -f- 



Greatest difference between numbers on same margin in same specimens 



(external) . ._ 18-21 



Greatest difference between numbers on same margin in same specimens 



(internal) ' 16-17 



9 



Extremes in numbers on external margin 19-22 



Extremes in numbers on internal margin 17-19 



Average number of external margin 21 



Average number on internal margin 17 + 



Greatest difference between numbers on same margin in same specimens 



(external) 19-22 



Greatest difference between numbers on same margin in same specimens 



(internal) 17-18 



Synonymy. — The species bivittata in the past has never been 

 properly distinguished from maculi'pennis, and the published 

 references to Serville's species are either erroneous (referring to 

 maculi'pennis alone), in part correct (where the forms were not 

 recognized as distinct), or fortuitously correct (where material 

 of this species alone was in hand). The reference of a Pablo 

 Beach male of this species to intertexta by Rehn and Hebard, in 

 1907, was due to the first recognition by those authors of a species 

 distinct from true intertexta (then called by them vigilans). At 

 that time Rehn and Hebard continued to use the name bivittata 

 for the campestral species here shown to be properly called maculi- 

 pennis. 



