71 



" No. 64. Tliis Is most probably B. elongatus^ altliougb it is 

 longer. The specimen now marked 907 was sent me by Dr. 

 Harris under that name, bnt it chfiers from this materially, and, 

 except for its length, which agrees with Say's description, it 

 can hardly be referred to that species. The thorax in 907 is 

 shorter and wider at base. The whole insect is shorter ; and 

 the name elongatus seems at first sight to be misapplied. Be- 

 sides that, the elytra offer differences. In 907, between the 

 suture and the humeral elevated line, there are five interstitial 

 lines, three of which are not uncommonly convex, but the two 

 intermediate ones are remarkably convex, and, visible to the 

 naked eye, continue so till they reach the humeral elevated line 

 near the apex. Moreover, the three strice between the hu- 

 meral line and the margin are very distinctly punctured, and 

 tlie others near the apex are obscurely so, whereas in No. 64 

 the punctures are obsolete, and even wanting on the marginal 

 striee, as well as at the apex." 



[" No. 64. This has two impressed dots, each with one hair, 

 on the margin of the thorax. It is probable that this is the 

 same as B. simplex of Dejean, and that he described the variety 

 labelled (64 ? ?) in my collection, or else that is B. simplex^ 

 and I do not possess B. elongatus." Hentz's mss. Catal.J 



HARRIS TO HENTZ, 



Milton, June 5, 1829. 



Your dfaerodactglus I have compared with numerous speci- 

 mens of our rose-bug ; the colors and size of which (namely, 

 our insect) are very uniform in different individuals. Setting 

 these circumstances aside, your insect appears 2^rimd facie to 

 differ sufliciently to constitute a distinct species ; being pro- 

 portionately more elongated and slender than ours, and having 

 the fom' posterior tarsi distinctly annulated with \\ lute bristles. 



