HENRY J. FRANKLIN. 187 



(c). Sylvarum Group. 



Including sy /varum (L.), eqtiestris (F.) (= arenicola Thom- 

 son ?), molkoseuntsi Rad. and possibly other species. I have 

 seen no specimen of this group, but Radoszkowski's figures 

 of the male genitalia of these three species (Bull. Soc. 

 Natural. Moscou, LIX, 1884, pp. 73 and 74; Tab. II, Figs. 

 20, 21 and 22) are enough to make it certain that they repre- 

 sent a group distinct from all the others known to me. Ra- 

 doszkowski's figures seem to indicate that these species are 

 more primitive than any of the New World species, 

 (d). PoMORUM Group. 



YnoXu^mg pomo7'um Panzer, 7nesomelas(j&x^\.Q.Q.z\iQ.x and pos- 

 sibly other species. I examined the genitalia of a male 

 pomoriun determined by Schmiedeknecht and found them to 

 be as figured by Schmiedeknecht and Radoszkowski. I have 

 included mesomelas in this group because Radoszkowski's 

 figures of the genitalia of that species (Bull. Soc. Natural. 

 Moscou, LIX, 1884; Tab. II, Figs. 19 a, b and d) represent 

 genitalia much like those oi pomoriun. 



This group is closely allied to the Dimioiicheli group, 

 (e). DivKRSus Group. 



Including diversus and possibly other species. I establish 

 this group entirely on Handlirsch's figure (Ann. Naturh, 

 Hofmus. Wien., Ill, 1888, p. 214 ; T. 10, Fig. 10) of the male 

 genitalia of diverstis. Diversus is from Japan and appears to 

 have rather close afifinities with the Dumoitcheli group, 

 (f). Tristis Group. 



Judging by the figures given by Radoszkowski (Bull. Soc. 

 Natural. Moscou, LIX, 1884, p. 75), this group, as estab- 

 lished by him, is valid, though it evidently has rather close 

 affinities with the Diunoncheli group. 



Judging by Radoszkowski's figures (ibid.. Tab. IV, Figs. 

 37, a and b) of the male genitalia of stevenii (= 207iattis 

 var. ?), that species should have also been included m the 

 Tristis group. 



If the figures of the male genitalia of agrorum (F.) given 

 by Schmiedeknecht (Apid. Europ., I, 1883) and Radosz- 

 kowski (Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou, LIX, 1884) are correct, 

 that species probably represents still another group not 

 found in the New World. 



TRANS. AM. ENT. SOC, XXXIX. 



