18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.58. 



The male, two specimens of which are in the United States National 

 Museum collection, differs from the female in the slightly greater 

 extent of the dark color at the apex of the abdomen and hind legs 

 and the somewhat reduced maculation of the wings. 



Distribution. — Ohio (type) ; Pennsylvania ; Cohasset, Massachusetts 

 (homotype), Owen Bryant; Glencarlyn, Virginia, J. K. Mulloch; 

 Black Pond, Difficult Run, Virginia, R. C. Shannon; Plummer's 

 Island, Maryland (cocoon only), R. C. Shannon; South Carohna; 

 Pyziton, Clay County, Alabama, H. H. Smith ; Handley, Texas, W. D. 

 Pierce; Onaga, Kansas, Crevecoeur. 



Mr. R. C. Shannon has published' a very interesting account of the 

 finding of a larva and subsequent rearing of a specimen of this species 

 as a parasite of the spider. Epeira trivittata. This specimen, a male, 

 is one of the series examined. 



Genus ACRODACTYLA Haliday. 



Bnrypus Haliday, Curtis, Guide Arrang. Brit. Ins., ed. 2, 1837, p. 94. (Preoccu- 

 pied.) Genotype. — Barypus degener HaMday . 

 Acrodactyla Haliday, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 2, 1839, p. 117. 



All remarks in the present paper relating to tliis genus are based on 

 a specimen in the National Museuni collection labeled Acrodactyle 

 madida Haliday. This specimen differs markedly form Morley's 

 idea of the genus. As thus typified the genus is not represented in 

 the known North American fauna. The almost entire lack of either 

 furrows or elevation on the tergites except the second, the subpe- 

 tiolate abdomen with the very short and inconspicuous dorsal carinae 

 of the fiirst tergite, and the lack of prescutal cristulae render it very 

 distinct from either of the other genera. 



Genus COLPOMERIA Holmgren. 



Colpomeria Holmgren, Ofvers, Vet.-Akad. Forh., 1859, p. 126. Genotype.~CoJ- 

 pomeria laevigata Holmgren. 



This genus has been universally considered as a genus distinct from 

 Polysphincta Gravenhorst. Morley ^ considers it very probably a 

 synonym of Scamhus Hartig, from which genus he states it differs 

 only in the absence of the areolet. Morley's conclusion is obviously 

 erroneous since the femoral character in Colpomeria is a secondary 

 sexual character in the female and common to both front and middle 

 legs, while in Scambus it is a male character and confined to the front 

 legs. Moreover, in Colpomeria the femur is angularly incrassate in 

 the middle while in Scambus it is concave in the middle. Davis fell 

 into the same error when he described his Colpomeria litoralis, which 

 is the male of Epiurus pteropJiori (Ashmead). 



1 Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 15, 1913, p. 162. ' Brit. Ichn., vol. 3, 190S, p. 137. 



