89 



which when compared with T. limbatus Fabr., of Europe, sent 

 me by you, offer no differences which I can perceive. 



I beheve our Cicindcla denticulata is the same with O. rucfi- 

 frons Dejean, I, 53. It is true the labrum in all the $ observed 

 is blackish, but that is very often the case \Asith the $ of 0. 

 unipunctata, splendida, liirticollis Q'epanda Dejean) and my 

 1125 (probably C. rufiventris Dejean, which I suppose to be 

 a variety of C. hccmorrlioidalis) . Now he may have a speci- 

 men where the labrum has not changed its color. 



Your 582 which you labelled BracJiinus eordicoUls, I num- 

 bered 112() [= '■'■Brachinus eyanipennis ?? Say," Hentz's mss. 

 Catal.]. I cannot agree with you as to the specific name. The 

 third and fourth joints of antennge have no black spot as in B. 

 crepitans. The fourth at tip, and all the termini,! joints are a 

 little darker than the three basal ones. The elyti-a are not of 

 a color ^^ plus hleue et p)lus claire^'' but, on the contrary, are 

 darker. The postpectus and abdomen, instead of being 

 '"'• presque noirdtre^'' are almost testaceous. If there is no 

 mistake in labelling, I think you will find it does not agree with 

 Dejean's description. In that case, you ought to describe it as 

 new. Is it from Massachusetts or New Hampshire ? 



HARRIS TO HENTZ. 



Milton, Jan. 3, 1830. 



■ Your 220 has a close resemblance in the form of the head, 

 antennas and thorax to Telephorus. It is remarked by Latreille 

 (Gen. Crust, et Insect.) that the mandibles of Mcdthtnus have 

 a strong tooth within the points — " mandihula intus dente uno 

 valido" ; this would justify me in placing this insect in the 

 genus MaltJdnus ; but I submit to your better judgment. May 

 not Cantliaris abhreviata and brevipennis belong to the same 

 senus as this insect ? 



