OF THE UNITED STA1 .",( i."> 



\ v v i: \ D i \ 



Page 154. In A.TRACTOPTER09 add the following species: 



A. 8 i 1 a c e u s , rufo-testaceus, fere opacus, tenuiter flavo-] latitudin ! -n- 



giore, antrorsum 3ubangustato, lateribua antico late rotundatis, anguli 



bus, disco confertissime sultilitcr punctato, elytris fere parallelia pallid triia punctatia imi 



sis, interstitiia vix convexis, punctatis, antennis articulia 2 et 3 requalibus, 1'" coniuncl 

 Long. ■:]—••: I. 



/. m» Say, Ann. Lyo. of New York, 1, 260. 



Middle and Southern States, not rare. This species differs from the following bj its 

 less slender form and less elongated antennae. Thehead and thorax are somewhat darker 

 than tin; elytra, but never become piceous or black: the thorax is verj obsoletel) chan- 

 nelled: the abdomen is rufous, and the postpectus dusky. 



A. umbrnticus, piceo-niger, fore opacus, tenuiter Bavo-pubescens, thorace latitudine scaqui Ion- 

 giorc, antrorsum sabangastato, lateribua vix rotund subdirerj 



confertissime punctato, elytris fere parallelia fuscia, versus basin pallidioribus, Btriia in ■ 

 tatis, interstitiia punctatia, pedibus antennisqne fust 

 coniunctia t'° dnplo brevioribus. Long. "3. 



Middle and Southern States. This is probably what Saj alluded to as a variet) of the 

 preceding species, having the thorax and abdomen almosl black. The thorax, as in \. 

 silaceus, is very indistinct!) channelled. 



With regard to the difference betwei n Uractopterua and Dolopius, of this essay, a few 

 words of explanation may h try, Thi essential differences may be reduced to two: 



1. The head of Atractopterus is not perpendicular, and the mouth not inferior; and 2. The 

 basal joint of the antenna? is not elongated. 



It maj be a matter of dispute b) what name the genus called Dolopius, in the pn 

 essay, should be properly denoted. I confess that I ma) have acted without due delibe- 

 ration in selecting th<' name Dolop I has alrcad) I" « n placed as a synonym t" I 

 tinus b) Latreille: I would, therefore, propose t<> substitute for il is liabli 

 fewer objections. M) reason I ting Dolopius was, that most ol the native 

 previously described had be a refi rred to that genus, and I was unwilling to introduce any 

 change of name, excepl in cases where it was absolutely ne< On consultation with 

 Dr. Ilarri-. his opinion, iii which I am now happy I that if the 

 united, the choice of names should be restricted to Ectini \ I treille 

 has united the other two I Dolopius and ^> ri< o omus with them. 



