CYDNIDAE OF THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE — FROESCHNER 565 



margin, thence continued forward along lateral margin; lateral area 

 impunctate. 



Legs: Not specially modified. 



Sternites: Shining, impunctate except in spiracular area. 



Terminalia: Genital capsule shining, with few punctures in lateral 

 angles, apical margin slightly sinuate medially; gonostylus as illus- 

 trated (fig. 255). 



Length of body: 4.27(4.08-4.50). 



Female: Similar to males. 



Head: Length-width ratio, 0.74(0.70-0.78) :1.10(1.03-L15); inter- 

 ocular width, 0.70(0.66-0.73). Antennal segments: I, 0.21(0.20- 

 0.23); II, 0.18(0.16-0.20); III, 0.24(0.23-0.26); IV, 0.29(0.26-0.30); 

 V, 0.35(0.35-0.36). Labial segments: I, 0.37(0.34-0.40); II, 0.57 

 (0.53-0.61); III, 0.41(0.38-0.43); IV, 0.33(0.32-0.36). 



Pronotum: Length-width ratio, 1.14(0.97-1.21) :2.20(2.00-2.31). 



Scutellum: Length-width ratio, 1.42(1.31-1.56): 1-37(1.23-1.49). 



Length of body: 4.16(3.74-4.35). 



Type data. — Berg's type, which is apparently lost, was reported 

 to be from Buenos Aires. Signoret indicates that his type had come 

 from Montevideo, Uruguay. 



Specimens studied.— 8 males, 10 females. 



Brazil: Baixa Verde, Rio Grande do Norte, Mann, 1 male (MCZ). Chapada, 

 July and August, 6 males, 6 females (Car). Estancia Sergipes, December 1929, 

 R. C. Shannon, 1 female (USNM). Nova Teutonia, Santa Catarina, Aug. 26, 

 1950, Nov. 28, 1950, F. Plaumann, 2 females (JCL). Pard, July, 1 male, 1 

 female (Car). 



Discussion. — This is the form which Signoret (1882, p. 37) synony- 

 mized under C. insularis Westwood after a study of the type of Berg's 

 laeviculus. Such assignment is not tenable, as Dr. Graham's helpful 

 notes reveal that the type of insularis Westwood has an incomplete 

 row of setigerous punctures on the submargin of the jugum, thus not 

 agreeing with Signoret's definition and causing it to be placed in the 

 genus Dallasiellus in the present study (footnote 9, p. 573). However, 

 in the absence of Berg's type, the author is accepting Signoret's 

 association of Berg's species with this form. 



Although the author has not seen the type of Aethus distinctus 

 Signoret, that species is synonymized here because of a reluctance to 

 accept Signoret's species when they are separated from closely allied 

 forms on the basis of the osteolar peritreme. Sufficient evidence is 

 available in other parts of the family (i.e., his separation of Aethus 

 politus from A. communis, of Pangaeus vicinus from P. bilineatus, 

 and other examples) to cause one to question the accuracy of his 

 observations on this structure. Study of the type may refute this 

 conclusion. 



