THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 107 



Achromota, p. 254, does not belong to the Aleocharini but to the 

 Myrmedoniini and is a synonym of Acroiona. 



Euryfyro/iota, ]). 235, is a valid subgenus of Atheta near Acrotoiia. 

 If the present At/ieia were properly divided generically, it would be a 

 subgenus o( Acrotona. 



Colposura, p. 236, and Valenusa, p. 242, are valid gubgenera of 

 Atheta near AmiscJia. Ainiscka is really a valid genus, of which the two 

 mentioned might be regarded as subgenera. 



Athetota, p. 236, is a synonym of Anepsiota. 



Flatyusa, p. 223, is a synonym of Myrmedonia. This synonym 

 was announced many years ago, but was overlooked by Dr. Eichelbaum. 

 (See Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci , VII, p. 322). 



Nototaphra, p. 222, has dorsal sexual tuberosities of the male 

 abdomen similar to those oi Myrtncecia ; but it differs in the formation of 

 the sterna between the middle cox?e, in the very fine close punctures of 

 the upper surface and in the smaller basal joint of the antennae. If 

 Mynncpcia be regarded as a subgenus of Myrmedonia, Nototaphra would 

 be another subgenus ; if, however, Myrin(ecia\% a distinct genus, as I hold 

 to be true, then Nototaphra is also distinct. 



Myrmobiota, p. 250, is a genus wholly distinct from Ilommisa, and 

 has a markedly different habitus. The sjiecimen sent to Dr. VVasmann 

 by Mr. Wickham under that generic name, and upon wliich the former 

 gained his opinion of I\fyr»iobiota, was certainly Homceiisa and not 

 Myrmobiota. I have never seen this specimen. Soliusa, p. 250, might be 

 regarded as a subgenus of Hjiiueusa, but its type, crinitiila, bears not the 

 slightest resemblance to Myrmobiota, and has only a general similarity 

 with the type of Homceusa. Dr. Eichelbaum should certainly make these 

 corrections in the interest of truth. 



The above notes will determine certain points which could not very 

 well be settled, because of the isolated nature of the descriptions. There 

 are, however, many names which I have published as genera in systematic 

 work, such as those under the comprehensive genus Aleochara and under 

 Falagria, the weight of which as genera or subgenera can be determined 

 very well from the context. Very recent writers will probably be disposed 

 to hold them for the most part as subgenera, but I am sure that more 

 painstaking study would convince them that they are in great part true 

 genera. It can only be said that for the present their systematic weight is 

 a subject of disagreement. 



