JUBININI 45 



Elytra with the transverse basal carina not so irregular as in raffrayi, 

 but instead paralleling the basal elytral margin; the three basal foveae less 

 recessed beneath the transverse basal carina, and hence apparently larger 

 than in raffrayi. Elytra otherwise as in raffrayi. 



Abdomen with first tergite almost twice as long as second; second longer 

 than third; third longer than fourth; fifth much larger than in raffrayi, two- 

 thirds as long as fourth segment. Third stemite somewhat longer than fourth; 

 fifth stemite medianly very short, one-fourth as long as fourth, and conse- 

 quently the rounded tubercle at middle extending for entire length of the fifth 

 stemite; sixth stemite smaller than in raffrayi, flattened medianly, this flattened 

 area extending for the length of the segment and for one-half of its width, 

 with a small median concavity in this flattened area ; posterior margin of sixth 

 stemite less sinuate than in raffrayi. Otherwise as in abdomen of raffrayi. 



Prostemum not longitudinally carinated, and the anterior coxal cavities 

 not as sharply defined as in raffrayi. Mesostemum not examined. Metasteraum 

 evenly convex, with carina as in raffrayi. Posterior coxae slightly separated 

 at base, the separation a little more pronounced than in raffrayi. Ventral sur- 

 faces and legs otherwise as in raffrayi. 



Described from one male type. Collected by the author on Barro Colorado 

 Island, Gatun Lake, Panama Canal Zone by sifting leaf mold of the forest 

 floor at Zetek 23. July 27, 1936. 10:00 A.M. 



This unique specimen is quickly separated from the male raffrayi by many 

 characters enumerated above, but especially by the strikingly different ante- 

 basal platform. The species is also easily separated from the genotype, cen- 

 tralis Raffray, by the antebasal platform. 



Sebaga scydmaenilla (Sharp). 1887. Guatemala. (Duciola) (PI. VII) 



I have two specimens of what I believe to be scydmaenilla. In assigning 

 my specimens to this species, I feel a certain amount of doubt. Sharp (1887, 

 p. 44 and Fig. 24, Plate I) gives a few lines in Latin and a few sentences in 

 English, accompanied by a small, generalized drawing, as his description of 

 this species. These data agree, as far as they go, with my two specimens. 

 However, since scydmaenilla has not been recorded since the original citation 

 of the Guatemalan type, which was a single badly-preserved, doubtfully female 

 specimen, I have redescribed my material for future reference. As in the case 

 of notonoda, this redescription is a comparative account of the differences be- 

 tween scydmaenilla and raffrayi. Such treatment focuses attention on differ- 

 ences, does not waste space, and if the standard of comparison has been de- 

 scribed in the same paper there is no loss of accuracy. Redescription follows: 



Length: 1.95 mm. (length given by Sharp, loc. cit., 1.5 mm.). Greatest 

 width 0.8 mm. Color as in raffrayi and notonoda, with the body pubescence 

 average length being intermediate between these species, 0.067 to 0.08 mm. 



Head rounded-triangular, broadest through posterior third of eyes, the 

 eyes intermediate in size between raffrayi and notonoda, composed of about 



