1920.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 249 



The type is unique. 



• Chlorohippus roseipennis Brimer. 



1911. Chlorohippus roseipennis Bruner, Ann. Carneg. Mus., VIII, p. 88! 

 [Chapada, Matto Grosso, Brazil.] 



Goyaz, State of Goyaz. One female. [Hebard Cln.] 



The present specimen agrees with Bruner's description of this 



interesting genus and species, except that the caudal margin of the 



pronotal disk is arcuate instead of subangulate as described, that 



the caudal tibiae have six instead of seven or eight spines on the 



external margin and the same tibiae are purplish-glaucous instead 



of oil-green as described. These differences appear to us to be 



individual, although future work may show the Goyaz and Chapada 



specimens to differ from one another in other unnoticed specific 



features. For the present, however, it is best to consider them as 



representing the same species. 



Copiocera erythrogastra (Perty). 



1834. Xiphiara erythrogastra Perty, Delect. Anim. Articul. Brasil., p. 122, 

 pi. XXIV, fig. 2. [Mountains of the Province of Minas Geraes, Brazil] 



Goyaz, State of Goyaz. One female. [Hebard Cln.] 



It seems very probable that Marschall's euceros was based on 



the male sex of this species. The difference in antennal coloration 



mentioned by him may have been due to Perty's specimen having 



had the pale tips broken off. 



Episcopotettix sulcirostris Rehn. 



1902. Episcopotettix sulcirostris Rehn, Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc, XXIX, 

 p. 13. [Forest of San Juan, Mexico.^^j 



Goyaz, State of Goyaz. Two females. [Hebard Cln.] 

 These specimens appear to us to represent the previously unknown 

 female of this species. Certain features of difference from the male 

 type are very apparent, but of these several are clearly sexual and 

 the others are in all probability so. There exists, however, a possi- 

 bility that the Goyaz females may be specifically distinct from the 

 type of sulcirostris. The points of difference can be sunomarized as 

 follows. The fastigium is shorter and broader than in the type, 

 being distinctly shorter than the occiput, the dorsal surface not sul- 

 cate and distinctly lower than the level of the occiput, which latter 

 is appreciably arcuate dorsad; the frontal costa is broader, less 

 marked ventrad, with the sulcation distinct dorsad and subobsolete 



2^ We feel that the correctness of this locality is open to question, as all the 

 material seen since the original description came from South America. The 

 type had been dried from alcohol and labelled a number of years ago, by whom 

 ive do not know. 



