80 
NORTH AMERICAN MALACHIIDAE 
fauna. Taking these points up seriatim — it is true that the form 
is more slender in Microlipus than in any of the species of Mala- 
chius known to Horn at the time of writing, but several quite as 
slender species of Malachius have since been described. I am 
unable to discover any difference of moment in the length of the 
legs. The antennal formation varies much in Malachius, and 
while usually distinctly serrate or even pectinate in the males, 
in one species — pristinus — which in general make-up is a good 
Malachius, the antennae are very feebly serrate, even less so 
than in the new Microlipus productus. On the other hand 
prolixicornis, which agrees in narrow form and notably in the 
peculiar posteriorly narrowed thorax existing in several (not all) 
species of Microlipus, has strongly pectinate male antennae and 
was for this reason originally described by me as a Malachius. 
As to sexual characters, Horn mentions elytra both appendiculate 
and not in the male, which is quite as true of Malachius; “front 
tarsi of male stouter than in the female” in Microlipus, which is 
not really true; and “elytra apterous in the females,” which is true 
of the two species of which females were recognized by Horn but 
is not true of the other two, one of which — laticeps — is the type 
of the genus. Other male characters, such as the longer, stouter, 
more pilose antennae, the generally more parallel form, certain 
differences in color, and the deeply fissured last ventral are also 
more or less common to the two genera. No species of Malachius, 
so far as I am aware, has apterous females, and this character 
together with the completely non-serrate antennae, which are 
somewhat thicker in the male but not otherwise sexually modified, 
together with the somewhat peculiar form of the prothorax, 
which is also independent of sex, may perhaps serve to separate 
moerens and longicollis generically from the other species now 
recorded under Microlipus, all of which seem referable to Mala- 
chius as we now understand it. In this connection it is proper 
to say that presence or absence of wings is not generally held to 
be in itself a generic character, an instance of which is not far to 
seek in the nearby genus Collops. If, however, it should seem 
best to separate moerens and longicollis on the characters above 
mentioned, a new name would have to be proposed, the type of 
Microlipus being as above remarked not separable from Mala- 
chius. I am not prepared at the present time to carry out this 
