210 NORTH AMERICAN MUTILLIDAE 



Habitat. — Georgia: 1 cf , [Amer. Ent. Soc.]; St. Simon's Island, 9 June, 1911, 

 (W. V. Reed). Florida: Enterprise, 15 May, [Amer. Ent. Soc.]; Enterprise, 

 30 March to 10 May, [Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.]; Biscayne Bay, (Mrs. A. T. 

 Slosson), [Amer. Ent. Soc.]. 



Mutilla (TimuUa) euterpe Blake 



1879. Mutilla euterpe Blake, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, 7:249, 9 . 



As suggested by Fox, this species is very likely the female of 

 floridensis. So far it is known only from the unique type. The 

 deeply contracted thorax clearly distinguishes it from the females 

 of other species. 



Type: Enterprise, Florida, ]\Iay. Collection of American 

 Entomological Society. 



Mutilla (Timulla) rufa Lepeletier 



1845. Mutilla rufa, Lepeletier de St. Fargeau, Hist. nat. ins., Hymen., 3: 

 631, d". 

 / 1899. Mutilla hexagona Fox, (pars), Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, 25:270, cf . 



cf. Diameter of posterior ocelli .21 mm., their distance from 

 the eyes .62 mm., from each other .43 mm., from the front ocellus 

 .21 mm.; face and clypeus convex and polished, laterally rough- 

 ened; emargination on inferior border of mandibles not deep, 

 the tooth rather small, blunt. Scape apically weakly bicarinate. 



Mesosternum with an inconspicuous somewhat oblique tuber- 

 cle, not ridged on its summit. 



9. Sanford's brown: antennae except scape, legs except 

 femora beneath and coxae, and dorsal segments beyond the sec- 

 ond black; the scape dark red; each abdominal segment with an 

 apical silvery band, that of the third interrupted and that of the 

 second triangularly produced in the middle; other pubescence 

 scanty, the second dorsal with an inconspicuous appressed black 

 pubescence; pleura and sternal parts with a silvery sheen. Under 

 side of petiole with an anterior acute tooth; pygidium rugulose. 



The color characters are subject to variation. I may be wrong 

 in considering the females of rufa and hexagona as here identified 

 distinct species, and would not do so were it not for the con- 

 siderations already stated. The males are very distinct. 



There is very little likelihood, as Fox points out, that the 

 species identified by Blake and tentatively accepted by Fox as 

 mja is really that species. It is represented in the collection of 



