JAMES A. G. REHN 297 



alatus from eastern Ecuador is identical with hrunneri. There 

 is httle in the way of characters on which the genus Locheuma 

 (CaJetodes) can be retained as distinct from Vilerna, as the sup- 

 posedly diagnostic feature, the form of the caudal margin of the 

 pronotal disk, is found to be individually variable in Vilerna 

 aeneo-oculata and rugulosa, while the general pronotal form is 

 approximated in the latter species. For the present, however, 

 we prefer to consider Locheuma a distinct genus, the species 

 festae of Giglio-Tos, which unfortunately was not selected as the 

 genotype, having a very different appearance. Further study 

 may bring out some more salient features to clearly distinguish 

 Vilerna and Locheuma. 



Ovu" Calefodes pulchripes, from Balzapamba, Ecuador,^'' is 

 quite close to brunneri and when more material is examined may 

 prove to be the same, or, if alatus is distinct, the same as that 

 species. However, pulchripes differs from the material of hrun- 

 neri in being much more rugose, in having a shorter pronotum 

 and a transverse mesosternal interspace. The characters pre- 

 viously supposed to be diagnostic of pulchripes are apparently 

 only individual. The present species, like others of the Vilernae, 

 is a vai'iable one in minor features and this variation appears to 

 be largely individual. Bruner has recorded this species (as 

 flavipennis) from Para and Chapada, Matto Grosso, Brazil. 



Nuciera elegantula new species (Plate XV, fig. 42.) 



This species is placed in this genus provisionally, as it shows 

 certain differences from the relatively poor generic description of 

 Nuciera {Xuceria 8tal nee Walker), which may prove to be of 

 generic importance. Of the known genera of the Vilernae, 

 elegantula appears to show greater affinity with Xuciera, and 

 we prefer to place it here until more is known concerning the 

 genotype and only previously known species — X. roseipennis 

 Stal. The fastigium is l)roatler in the present insect than the 

 description would lead one to suppose was the case in r-oscipennis, 

 while the supplementary facial carinac are subparallel and not 

 more divergent than in Vilerna, as described. 



When compared with the description of roseipennis the present 

 insect can be readily distinguished by its much smaller size, 

 smoother face, l)!untcr and more rounded vertex, in th(> tegmina 



soProc. Acad. Nat. Sci. PhiUi., 1913, p. 99, figs. 1.3 to 15, (1913). 



TRANS. AM. ENT. .SOC, XLII. 



