PROC. ENT. SOC. WASH., VOL. 23, NO. 5, MAY, 1921 115 



in this lot of material. Figure 1, A is from the holotype; B 

 from a paratype; C and D from two of the Missoula, Montana, 

 specimens. Except for the differences in antennae the speci- 

 mens are inseparable, though differing somewhat in size. A 

 glance at the figures will show that the differences lie in the 

 relative closeness of the union between joints 8 and 9 of the 

 antenna and the degree of development of a suture dividing 

 joint 9 into two joints. The relative size and shape of the joints 

 is practically the same for all four antennae. In figure 1-D, we 

 have what appears to be a 2-jointed funicle and a 3-jointed 

 club. In C, joints 8 and 9 are not nearly so closely united and 

 the suture dividing the ninth is not so distinct. This antenna 

 may be said either to have a three-jointed tunicle and a two- 

 jointed club, or a two-jointed funicle and a three-jointed club, 

 the interpretation depending entirely upon the individual mak- 

 ing the examination. Figures A and B are alike and differ from 

 C only in the apparent absence of the suture dividing the ninth 

 joint. 



Although the greatest care was exercised in making these 

 mounts there can be little doubt but that to some extent the 

 apparent differences are to be accounted for by the imperfect 

 definition of subopaque objects when mounted in balsam. 

 Careful examination, before mounting, of the antennae from 

 which figures A and B were made showed both to have a definite 

 though very delicate constriction near the apex corresponding 

 in position to the suture dividing the ninth joint in figures C and 

 D. When mounted on a slide this suture was entirely invisible. 

 The antennal mount made by Girault from the holotype speci- 

 men and upon which he based his description of the genus 

 Pseudacriasoid.es was removed from the slide and it too showed 

 a distinct constriction or shallow groove on the ninth joint. 

 When remounted in balsam this groove again became invisible, 

 corresponding in appearance to figure A which was drawn from 

 the other antenna of the same specimen. 



The pressure of the cover glass probably accounts to some 

 extent for the greater separation between joints 8 and 9 in figures 

 A, B, and C. Joint 8 is apparently more or less cup-shaped at 

 apex, the base of joint 9 fitting into the aperture. The articu- 

 lation between the two joints is free nevertheless, and not 

 anchylosed as are the club joints. 



Antennae from the same specimens are not always exactly 

 alike in respect to the characters in question. For example, 

 while figure B shows the ninth joint without a dividing suture 

 the other antenna from the same individual when mounted in 

 balsam shows a more or less distinct suture. Also the mate to 

 the antenna from which figure D was drawn appears to have 

 joints 8 and 9 more distinctly separated. 



Whether one or more than one species is represented in this 



