1894-] v ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 207 



for my types agree in every particular with LeConte's type speci- 

 mens and descriptions, and were taken in the same, or virtually 

 the same locality. I could not change my views regarding these 

 species therefore, in any event. In regard to seriatus we disagree, 

 and it must be admitted that my seriatus did not correspond 

 completely with the type of LeConte, and was considered by me 

 as a slight variation; it has apparently been described under the 

 name spretus Dtz. I can only say at present that Dr. Dietz may 

 have described the original seriatus under that name, but the 

 specimen at present bearing the type label seems to differ like- 

 wise from his description in its larger size and other characters. 

 Regarding vestitus we seem to agree, but neither of us has de- 

 scribed the original vestitus; we have, however, described the 

 species bearing the type label at present. There seems to be 

 evidence in several other directions that the original type labels 

 of LeConte have been accidentally shifted in some cases; he 

 could surely not have made such errors of description as in the 

 case of vestitus. In the case of flavican s my description corre- 

 sponds with the specimen at present bearing the type label in the 

 LeConte cabinet, but not in every particular with the description. 

 I do not know flavicans Lee. (Dietz). We seem to agree re- 

 garding discoideus and amcenus, but my scapalis is the form de- 

 scribed as compar by Dietz. I do not think that it differs spe- 

 cifically from scapalis, with the type of which I compared it 

 carefully. My constrictus Say, seems to include a number of 

 Dr. Dietz' s species; this batch of specimens is still an enigma to 

 me, for, with decided differences in the beak and antennae, all 

 the other structural characters as well as habitus seem to be 

 similar throughout. It reminds me of the variations in Centrinus 

 salebrosiis, where a dozen apparent species might be announced, 

 and in fact I originally described some seven or eight in the small 

 subgroup containing salebrosits, but afterwards reduced them to 

 the four which will probably prove stable. 



I will not further involve the subject by suggesting synonymy, 

 but at the present time need only state that silaceus, which Dr. 

 Dietz regards on page 173 as identical with imbricatus, bears no 

 resemblance whatever to that species, also that corniculalus \vas 

 not described by Fabricius, as stated on page 164 and twice on 

 177, but by Fahraeus, and that quadrifer, on page 148, is not a 

 ' n. sp. ," but had been previously described. 



