JAMES A. G. REIIN 
-311 
from ]\ruzo, Boj'aca, Colombia.' These individuals ])oss('ssed 
very elongat(', slender, simple foiveps, and were in ('V('ry way 
(pule different fi'om anjffhinj*; seen previously. Efforts to loeate 
then invarial)ly led me to A eolohophora hogolcN.sis, tlu' oi'i^inal 
deseription of whieh was diseouragingly in(l('hnit(' about ff'atuu's 
whieh might have assisted in tlie reeognition of the op])osit(' 
.sex. A call for help to Dr. Nathan Banks, at the AIuscmhu 
of C'onii)arative Zoology, elicited some very u.s(fful notes made 
from the unique type of Scudder’s bog ote lists. These ci'itical 
observations are sufficiently convincing to demonstrate that the 
i\Iuzo insect is the previously unknown male of Scuddei’’s si)ecie.s. 
It is evident from the i\Iuzo individuals of hogotensis that 
the erection of two new genera is necessary, one to accommodate 
the “ Xeolobophora” nificeps of the literature of recent decades, 
and the other to include the insect recorded as Neolobophora 
bogotensis b}- Bormans from C’entral America. Hebard’s genus 
XeocosmieUa’^ is the closest relative of true Xeolobophora, as 
one might expect from its geogi'apliic propiiKpiity, but it difff'rs 
in certain features which might be tabulated as folhnvs: 
Xeololxiplioni 
(On basis of male sex) 
Antennae with second, third and 
fourth joints tojrether sul)e(iual to 
proximal joint. 
Tegminal keel at lunneral angle 
distinct, but not carinately elevated, 
becoming obsolete at distal hnirth 
Surface of tegniina anparently 
smooth to the naked eye, minutely 
shagreenous under considerable 
magnification. 
XeocosinuUa 
(Male sex only known) 
Antennae with second, third and 
fourth joints together one and one- 
third times as long as proximal joint. 
Tegminal keel at humeral angle 
very marked, carinately elevated, b(>- 
coming ol)Solete at distal fourth. 
Surface of tegniina coarsedy cori- 
aceo-punctate, visible to the naked 
eye. 
These two groups are unquestionably developnamts irom a 
common ancestor, Imt their features of difh'rence iq)])('ar to 
warrant generic separation, ^\’hen the leniah' s('x of Xcocos- 
mieUa is known, and the tarsal structure of tlu' two gem'ra is 
compared, we will be in a bettt'r ])osition to discuss mort* critically 
their affinity. The unitpie ty])(' of Xcocosiinelln now lacks com- 
plete tarsi. 
^ VIII, 1921, (A. Maria), [Ilebard Collection]. 
® Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc., xi.v, ji. tid, (1919). 
TR.\NS. AM. ENT. SOC., XLVII. 
