102 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [March, 



10 9. Harrisburg, Harris County; VIII, 13, 1915; (H.; in grassy 

 area in open short-leaf pine woods) ; 1 cf . 



Mermiria maculipennis maculipennis Bniner. Plate VI, flgs. 25 and 26; Plate VII, flgs 

 1-6, 8-14. 



1890. Mermiria maculipennis Bruner, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., xii, p. 54. 



[cf, 9: San Antonio and Carrizo Springs, Texas.] 

 1893. Mermiria bivittala Townsend (not Opsotnala bivittata Serville, 1839), 



Insect Life, vi, p. 31. [Sabinal, New Mexico; Las Cruces, New Mexico.] 

 1897. Mermiria bivittata McNeill, Proc. Davenp. Acad. Nat. Sci., vi, 



pp. 204 and 205. (In part.) 

 1897. Mermiria maculipennis McNeill, Ibid., pp. 204 and 206. [San 



Antonio and Carrizo Springs, Texas; Risville (err. pro Rioville), Nevada.] 

 1899. Mermiria bivittata Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci., xxxv, 



pp. 41 and 42. (In part.) [Records from Texas, Arizona, New Mexico 



and probably Kansas apply to this form.] 

 1902. Mermiria bivittata Scudder and Cockerell (not Opsomala bivittata 



Serville, 1839), Proc. Davenp. Acad. Sci., ix, p. 24. [Sabinal, Las Cruces 



and Mesiila, New Mexico.] 

 1904. Mermiria maculipennis Bruner, Biol. Cent. -Amer., Orth., ii, p. 39, 



pi. i, fig. 9. [Carrizo Springs and San Antonio, Texas.] 

 1904. Mermiria bivittata Bruner (not Opsomala bivittata ServiUe, 1839), 



Ibid., p. 39. [Las Cruces and Mesiila, New Mexico; Arizona; New 



Mexico and Texas.] 



1906. Mermiria bivittata Snow (not Opsomala bivittata Serville, 1839), 

 Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., xx, p. 36. [San Bernardino Ranch, Arizona.] 



1907. Mermiria bivittata Morse, Publ. 68, Carneg. Inst. Wash., p. 28. 

 (In part.) [The following records apply to this form: Amarillo, Bonita, 

 Clarendon, Quanah and (part) Wichita Falls, Texas; Mountain Park 

 (in part) and base of Mount Sheridan, Oklahoma.] 



Comparison. — We have given under M. bivittata the leading fea- 

 tures of difference between the two species, while under M. mac- 

 ulipennis macdungi we have discussed the features differentiating 

 the latter race from the typical form of the species. 



Tijpe. — 9 ; San Antonio, Texas. June. (M. Newell.) [Hebard 

 Collection ex Bruner, Type no. 20.] 



The species was originally based on an unnumbered series of both 

 sexes from two localities. Rehn and Hebard have already selec- 

 ted *^^ the above listed specimen as the lectotype. 



The type is of average size for the general region in which it was 

 taken, and its color pattern is much like that seen in individuals 

 in our series from Benevides and Beeville, Texas, but the tone of 

 the pale color is very light and, in a measure at least, due to liquid 

 immersion. 



Allotype.— d^; Carrizo Springs, Dimmit County, Texas. June, 

 [1885]. (A Wadgymar.) [Hebard Collection ex Bruner.] 



Morphological Notes. — In general form the present race exhibits 

 as a whole a more elongate and relatively slender body, when 



«iProc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1912, p. 62, (1912). 



