REVISION OF ELEODTINI BLATSDELL. 299 



Measurements. — Males: Length, 27-34: mm.; including caiida, 

 33-39 mm.; width, 12 mm. Females: Unknown to me. 



Genital characters.^ male. — Edeagophore elongate oblong oval, not 

 slender. 



Basale oblong, abont twice as long as wide, moderately convex, 

 sides siibparallel. 



Apicale rather broadly triangular, a little longer than wide, feebly 

 convex, without median groove; sides nearly straight to tip, the latter 

 acute; base with a rather narrowly rounded lobe at middle tliird, 

 laterally broadly and feebly sinuate. 



Sternite as in tenuipes. 



Hahitat. — Arizona (Tucson, H. F. Wickham) ; New Mexico (Las 

 Cruces). 



Number of specimens studied, 1 male. 



Type, a male in the Horn collection. 



Type-localiti/. — Tucson, Arizona ; collector, H. F. Wickham. 



Salient type-characters. — Thorax subquadrate, a little wider than 

 long, slightly narrowed behind, sides slightly arcuate in front, 

 oblique posteriorly, anterior angles not everted ; disc moderately con- 

 vex, sparsel}' very finely and indistinctly punctate, elytra elongate 

 oval, attenuate posteriorly; disc convex with rows of extremely fine 

 indistinct punctures (Horn). 



Diagnostic characters. — (See tennipes.') Without doubt, to my 

 mind the two species just described are extreme forms (heterotypes) 

 of the same species, but on account of the paucity of material known 

 to me, I have deemed it best to retain them separate until a larger 

 series shall have been collected. 



At most wickhami can only be a race of tenuipes.^ Casey's name 

 having priority of three months {tenuipes^ November, 1890; wick- 

 hami, February, 1891). Unfortunately only males are known to me. 



Both forms have been compared with hico} by their authors. They 

 do show greater aiRnity to that species than to any other, except 

 gracilis. From li/cw they can be recognized by the elytra being sculp- 

 tured with rows of fine punctures, and not strongly striate nor with 

 the intervals at all convex ; the elytra are slightly more inflated and 

 more suddenly declivous behind. 



The prothoracic characters are too variable to be relied upon. By 

 direct comparison I can not say that the legs are always longer than 

 in Ikco'. 



The form of the hind tibife in imckha^ni is not peculiar to that 

 species, as the same character is seen in the males of a number of 

 other species, notably in the caudate form of luca\ It is strange 

 that such characters should have been overlooked or ignored by pre- 

 vious writers. 



