226 BULLETIN 18 2, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



tion of the eighth sternite in the male. In these it is smaller, may 

 be as wide or twice as wide as deep, and there is less obvious modifi- 

 cation of the punctation of the seventh and eighth sternites, 

 I find no record of its habits. 



20. STENUS ANTILLENSIS Benick 



StctiMs (Hi/postcnus) antillensis Benick, 1017, p. 301, 302. — Scheeepeltz, 1933, 

 p. 1173. 



Descnption. — Black. Head moderately wide, somewhat wider than 

 the pronotum and somewhat smaller than the elytra, vertex feebly 

 impressed; with median broadly elevated area, another behind the 

 antennal ridge, and another at posterior margin of eye, smooth and 

 shining. Pronotum scarcely longer than wide; sides expanded, 

 strongly rounded at middle, arcuate before and behind ; coarse punc- 

 tures separated at middle to form midline; behind on each side with 

 a distinct shining tubercle. Elytra as long as pronotum, scarcely 

 widened behind humerus; together somewhat deeply emarginate 

 behind; the convex disk is impressed in front at suture, and on each 

 side with two wide transverse impressions which are feeble and do 

 not reach entirely to the suture; coarsely punctate, more coarsely 

 and a little more sparsely than pronotum. Ahdomen not margined; 

 in front coarsely and densely punctate, behind much finer and some- 

 what more sparsely punctate. Ta7\n with fourth segment bilobed, 

 first as long as two following together. Male^ seventh sternite finely 

 punctate and pubescent at middle, eighth with a broad shallow 

 rounded emargination, surface at middle finely and densely punctate 

 and densely pubescent. Integuments without ground sculpture. 

 Length, 4% mm. (From Benick.) 



Type locality. — Guadeloupe. 



Types. — One male in collection of Ludwig Benick. 



Records. — The following is the only record known to me: 



Guadeloupe: (Benick, 1917). 



Specimens examined. — I have seen no examples of this species. 

 Remarks. — This species is apparently distinct by its tuberculate 

 pronotum as well as by the male abdominal characters. 

 I find no record of its habits. 



Subfamily Euaesthetinae 



This subfamily has been very imperfectly characterized, and most 

 of its genera are known chiefly from the included species, there kung 

 no adequate descriptions or diagnoses. 



I know of no character or group of cliaracters that will distinguish 

 the subfamily from the family Pselaphidae. The flexibility of the 

 abdomen is a relative condition at best, but some of these and many 



