60 , THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



As related by Dr. Le Conte in the " Classification," this beetle has 

 been placed in several diverse families by different authors. "Mannerheim 

 hesitated between Scydmsenidse and Tenebrionidse ; Motschulsky, on 

 account of the form of the tarsi, placed it among the Parnidse; Gerstsecker 

 placed it in Tenebrionidse, near Helops." A study of the characters of the 

 rather remarkable larva does not, in my opinion, point to the correctness 

 of any of these references. It is decidedly not of a Parnide type, nor is 

 it in the least like the larva of Helops as described by Waterhouse and 

 Perris. To me it is a larva not corresponding exactly with those of any 

 of the families of Heteromera as far as I am acquainted with them, though 

 approximating the Pyrochroidse in many respects — ^the maxillary and 

 antennal structures, the depressed body (this, however, much more marked 

 in Fyrochroa), the strong chitinization of the abdominal tip and the 

 development of large horn-like processes on the ninth abdominal segment. 



From the Pyrochroid larvae known to me it may readily be distinguished 

 by having four horns on the last segment instead of two, by the absence 

 of accompanying cul-de-sacs and by the position of thtf abdominal 

 spiracles, which in Fyrochroa are ventro-lateral instead of dorso-lateral. 



Considering the very meagre knowledge that we have of Coleopterous 

 larva;, I think that we should not lay too much stress on their use in defining 

 the larger groups in our systems of classification ; but there seems nothing 

 in the structure of the one above described to indicate that Dr. Le Conte 

 was wrong in erecting a distinct family for the reception of the genus 



Explanation of Plate 2, 

 I, Full-grown larva, ventral view, much enlarged; 2, antenna; 3, 

 mandible; 4, maxilla; 5, labium; 6, hind leg; 7, scute of dorsum of 

 second abdominal segment, showing spiracles and setce ; 8, pupa, from 

 beneath. 



T^NIOCAMPA COMMUNIS, DYAR. 



The number of types given for this species as 3,500 is erroneous. 



The correct number is 3,430, as the Kaslo specimens number 3,425, not 



3,495 as incorrectly written. A species as common as this has naturally 



been often taken before, and I may state that it is generally known as T. 



fur/utata, Grt,, but incorrectly so. Harrison G. Dyar, 



f 



