BRACHYGLUTINI 151 



near San Feliz and Tole. This description is dated March, 1887. Raffray 

 described Bryaxis diversa from Cape Town, South Africa in January, 1887. 

 These "Bryaxis" are Reichenbachia and Sharp's name was preoccupied; Raf- 

 fray consequently named Sharp's species Reichenbachia diver sula (1904, p. 

 363). 



In the next place the original description of diversula is so poor that only 

 a few items can be elicited: (1) pronotum with a minute median fovea, (2) 

 frontal fovea of head present on the anteriorly declivous front, this condition 

 being stated by Sharp and also shown in his figure; (3) each elytron with three 

 basal foveae; (4) dorsal faces of the fifth and sixth antennal segments are 

 well shown. This set of features, taken with other general characters, would 

 place diversula in Group 52 in which the frontal fovea is present but on the 

 declivous front, and the males have the fifth and sixth antennal segments 

 abnormal. However, Raffray (1904) put diversula in Group 56 which is char- 

 acterized by having no frontal fovea. Now it is obvious that either Raffray 

 incorrectly placed diversula, or examined Sharp's types and discovered that 

 Sharp incorrectly diagnosed the presence of the frontal fovea. Both assump- 

 tions are difficult to entertain and yet are mutually untenable. The matter is 

 further complicated in that Raffray (1904, p. 295) described from Mexico 

 Reichenbachia appendiculata. This latter species has a frontal fovea on the 

 strongly declivous front, and abnormal fifth and sixth antennal segments in 

 the male, and so belongs in Group 52. This appears to be a definite and correct 

 allocation. However, if diversula belongs in group 52 (and Sharp's words and 

 figure would seem to demonstrate this position), then we have appendiculata 

 and diversula in the same group, and the dorsal faces of the male fifth and 

 sixth antennal segments are slightly similar in form. The ventral faces of these 

 segments are not even hinted at by Sharp, and are well described in all their 

 abnormality by Raffray. However, appendiculata has each elytron with two 

 basal foveae and diversula has three basal foveae as near as I can determine. 

 This would definitely separate diversula from appendiculata. 



In the next place, the new species, stroheckeri has the dorsal face outline 

 similar to diversula and appendiculata, similar abnormal features on the 

 ventral faces of the fifth and sixth antennal segments of appendiculata, agrees 

 with this latter species in having only two basal foveae on each elytron; differs 

 radically from appendiculata in having no frontal fovea at all and from both in 

 having the epistome erected into a horn-like tubercle. Raffray has nothing to 

 say on the epistome of appendiculata, and if this were abnormal in this species 

 he would have been sure to describe it; Sharp figures a normal epistome in 

 his diversa. It seems clear, then, that stroheckeri and appendiculata are not 

 even closely related, and equally clear that stroheckeri and diversula are even 

 more distantly separated. 



diversula Raffray. Panama. {Bryaxis diversa Sharp, 1887, preoccu- 

 pied, cf. Raffray, 1904). (Group 52, vide supra'?) 

 stroheckeri new species. Panama Canal Zone. 



