OF WASHINGTON, VOLUME XVI, 1914 175 



NOTE ON RHIPIDANDRI A CORRECTION. 1 



BY E. A. SCHWARZ AND H. S. BARBER, Bureau of Entomology. 



An injustice seems to have been done to Motschulsky's memory 

 by the junior writer, in his former notes on this group (Proc. 

 Ent. Soc. Wash., 1913, vol. xv, p. 189), and by other writers also, 

 owing, probably, to the similarity of the names Xyloborus and 

 Xykborus. Thus Gemminger and Harold 1872 (Cat,, p. 2685), 

 Hagedorn 1910 (Coleopt, Catal. Junk, Ipidse, p. 101), Barber 

 1913 (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., xv, p. 189-190) and Kleine 1914 

 (Berl. Ent. Zeitsch., vol. 58, 1913, p. 160) have all been wrong in 

 considering that he had described his species as a Scolytid, and 

 in failing to recognize his generic name. The only writer who 

 seems to have noticed the distinction seems to be Arrow 1904 

 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist, (7), vol. 14, p. 30-33) who for some reason 

 did not make use of Motschulsky's generic name. It is also 

 worthy of record in this connection that cotypes of some foreign 

 species have been added to our National Collection. We append 

 some omitted or subsequent bibliographical references for addition 

 to the list of notices previously given. 



The name Xyloborus appears among Heteromerous genera in 

 the Dejean Catalogue (1833, p. 201, and 1837, p. 222) with an 

 undescribed species from Buenos Ayres and is therefore a nomen 

 nudum, but Motschulsky in 1858 described a related species, 

 crenipennis, from Burma using the generic name of Dejean and 

 referring to the South American species, thus validating the 

 generic name, for which his species automatically becomes the 

 type. That he was dealing with a Heteromerous instead of with 

 a Scolytid genus is evident from the remarks following his specific 

 diagnosis and which also mention some generic characters. More- 

 over the name Xyleborus was not used for the genus in the latter 

 family until six years later. Xyloborus is thus an older name than 

 any of the other generic names of the group, if Eledona be ex- 

 cluded, but it is necessary to examine the status of the genus in 

 which the still older species (flabellicorms) had been placed. 

 Sturm, 1826, evidently intended to write Xyletinus instead of 

 Xylotinus on page 59 of his Catalogue, for on page 206, and on 

 plate 1, figure 7, the name is correctly spelled. This typographical 

 error should not be perpetuated to supersede Rhipidandrus 

 LeConte 1857. The type of Xyletinus Latr. 1890, cannot be 

 pectinatus as stated by Westwood, for it is not one of the three 

 originally included species. Two of the three are now listed in 

 Lasioderma leaving only bucephalus Illiger as the logical type. 



1 Presented at meeting of June 4, 1914. 



