54 COLEOPTERA RHYNCHOPHORA. 



A. molochinus Dietz. 



Specimens in no way distinguishable from the Montana 

 type have been taken at Franconia, New Hampshire, in Sep- 

 tember or October by Mrs. Slosson, who writes that they 

 were swept from wild asters in a limited area. 



A, luiiuicailiis n. sp. — Moderately elongate, piceous ; legs, beak 

 and antennae — except the club — rufotestaceous ; body very densely 

 clothed with broad overlapping grayish-white scales which completely 

 conceal the sculpture. Beak (c?) as long as the head and prothorax, 

 moderately arcuate, not densely punctate, the punctures arranged 

 serially toward the base; antennae inserted at apical two-fifths, funi- 

 cle 6-jointed, second joint about twice as long as wide, one-half longer 

 than the third and subequal to the second and third united. Eyes 

 separated by slightly less than the basal width of the beak. Prothorax 

 a little wider than long, sides parallel and broadly rounded in basal 

 two-thirds, apical constriction feeble. Elytra obviously but not greatly 

 wider than the prothorax, elongate oblong, sides parallel to behind the 

 middle. Fifth ventral segment about one-half longer than the fourth, 

 the latter equal to the third. Front thighs minutely toothed ; hind 

 tibiae straight ; claws small with a short acute basal tooth. Length, 

 1.7-2.2 mm. ; width, .7-. 9 mm. 



Type. — d" ; from Tuscon, Arizona (Wickham). 



Very similar to canus but a little stouter, the hind tibiae not 

 curved in the cf , the last ventral less elongate and the claw 

 tooth slightly shorter. Because of the unmodified hind tibiae 

 of the 6^, jnimicanus rmxsi be referred to the squamosus group 

 in which it is to be associated with pauperculus by Dietz's 

 table. 



A. latiusculus Dietz. 



I cannot for a moment accept this as distinct from subfas- 

 ciatus Lee. The distinctive characters given by Dietz are 

 no more than individual. As illustrating the failure of the 

 tabular characters, a North Carolina specimen in my collec- 

 tion would by the elytral fascia be latiusculus, but by the 

 frontal fovea would be subfasciatus. 



A. moleciilus Csy. 



I can see no means of separating this from robushilus Lee. 

 According to Casey moleciilus differs in its "narrower form 

 and slightly different vestiture ; " according to Dietz mole- 



