MORGAN HEBARD 159 



insect. The description of Beauvois is wholly superficial and his 

 figure lacks all indication that it is enlarged, a feature explained 

 by that author, who in his introduction states that all the speci- 

 mens are drawn an inch long, lines giving the natural size being 

 placed beside the enlarged figures, a feature omitted by accident 

 on plate lb. This has been noted and the synonymy first 

 established by Rehn.^^ 



The present species is apparently the most widely distributed 

 of the genus. Nearest relationship is shown to C. reticulosa, 

 though the general appearance of the present insect is far less 

 distinctive. 



The following features are as found in a pair from the San 

 Francisco Mountains, San Domingo, d^ . Size small, form 

 slender. As in the other species of the group, the eyes are 

 normally separated by distinctly more than the ocular depth, 

 this usually a little, occasionally about one third, less than 

 the width between the antennal sockets (one large male from 

 Mayaguez, P. R., shows excessive variation in having the inter- 

 ocular space scarcely more than half the ocular width). Cross- 

 veinlets betweea discoidal sectors of tegmina numerous but in- 

 conspicuous. Supra-anal plate very small, strongly transverse, 

 very weakly produced with distal margin very broadly convex. 

 Concealed genitalia : ^^ sinistrad is situated a very thin spatulate 

 chitinous projection, from the apex of which springs a very slender 

 elongate chitinous process directed sinistro-caudad and then 

 curving at its middle very sharply dextrad with immediate apex 

 showing a minute bulb. Subgenital plate moderately produced, 

 lateral portions raised, weakly convex to mesal fourth of distal 

 margin, the lateral margins each comprehending about three- 

 eighths of the total margin and terminated on each side by a brief 

 concavity, in which emargination is situated a small rounded 

 knob, slightly longer than wide, with dorsal surface heavily 



" Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., xxii, p. 109, (1906). 



" We have been unable to consider fully the concealed male genitalia for the 

 species of the present genus, as the insects are so small and dehcate and in 

 many cases represented in collections by so few specimens that it would often 

 be impossible to examine these parts without destroying important material. 

 In many groups these features are of the utmost importance in distinguishing 

 species which might be easily confused, but in the present complex the species 

 can be satisfactorily determined without this aid. 



TRANS. AM. ENT. SOC, XLII. 



