210 GEO. H. HOKN, M. I). 



The Museum of Comparative Zoology, at Cambridge, containing 

 the LeConte series. I have had occasion niany times to express my 

 thanks for the kind attention and assistance received. 



The National Museum series, through the kindness of Prof C. V. 

 Riley. 



The cabinet of Henry Ulke, at .Washington, which has always 

 been open to me without restriction. 



The cabinet of Mr. Samuel Henshaw, of Cambridge, including 

 the material of C P. Austin. 



From Mr. Charles Strumberg, of Galesburg, 111., an exceptionally 

 fine and large local series from that region. 



A series kindly loaned by Aug. Merkel, of New York City. 



My own cabinet, containing all the described species excepting 

 cequalis and longkovnh, in which are many specimens kindly given 

 by Messrs. Schwarz, Lugger, Fuller and 8now. 



At this time it seems hardly necessary to dwell on the reasons for 

 the suppression of the genera formed at the expense of Lachnosterna 

 further than to state that the characters are so unimportant that to 

 insist on their strict interpretation would not only divide the genus 

 in a very unnatural manner, but separate very closely allied species. 

 In order to realize this it is simply necessary to refer in the bibliog- 

 raphy to the species ranged by Burmeister as Trichestes, and to 

 learn that LeConte has described the same species as a Lachnosterna 

 and an Endrosa. The only possible division of the genus on charac- 

 tei's at all constant would be that indicated by the sexual characters 

 of the hind tibial spurs of the male, while a small group might be 

 separated in which the anterior tibite have but two teeth. By this 

 means Groups JFto AT, inclusive, Avould form Lachnosterna proper. 

 Groups /to ///and AT/ to XVII, if taken all together would con- 

 stitute a rather heterogeneous assemblage, while Group A"TT//is for 

 the present sufficiently distinct. Until the genera of Rhizotrogini 

 are more carefully studied with the increased material now at hand, 

 it seems useless to divide any of the genera at present existing. 



By the niethods in vogue the structure of the claws plays an im- 

 portant roll in the definition of genera, but I have elsewhere shown 

 (Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 1878, p. 138, et seq.) that species which must 

 be associated from the fact that they possess a facies and many struc- 



