299 



Of these I have seen types, cotypes or topotypes of all 

 except discoideus, which is represented solely l)y tho unique 

 type in the Snow Collection. From the description I am 

 quite positive it is only a slight variant of what we have 

 long known as Uruhatus Newm., but as Xewman's name is 

 preoccupied by Menetries (1836), discoideus becomes the 

 name of the species. Sevier also seems to be not distinct 

 from curolinensis; atottuis is in my opinion a form of atoma- 

 rius; rotundicollis I believe to be the true abdominalis of 

 Say; and laevicoUis is nearly typical renidens Lee. which in 

 turn is not separable from the older varicolor of Suffrian. 



1910. Bowditch— Can. Ent., XLII, pp. 53-56— describes notatus, 

 carolinensis and shasta. Of these the unique type of notatus 

 is in the Snow Collection and the species is unknown to me. 

 Shasta is a maculate form of punctatus Bowd. 



1910. Blatchley— Coleoptera of Indiana pp. 1127. 1130— de- 

 scribes elegans and sticticus. The former name is preoccu- 

 pied by Graells— Mem. Acad. Madrid, 1851, p. 153— and the 

 species has been renamed praeclarus by Weise ( Wien. Ent. 

 Zeit., 1913, p. 219). Sticticus, I am convinced, is the same 

 as sobrinus Hald. 



Generic Affinities 



The only genera of the Cryptocephalini with which Pachybra- 

 chys might by any possibility be confused are Crypiocephalus and 

 Griburius.^ Of these, Cryptocephalus is separable with certainty 

 by a number of structural differences; Pachybrachys and Gribu- 

 riiis are, however, very closely allied, and while the latter, by 

 its comparatively large size, very robust body and regular series 



2 The use of the name Scolochrus Suffr. in place of the older Grihurius Hald. 

 by European author-s is entirely unwarranted. 



TRANS. AM. ENT. SOC, XLI. 



