rnOCEEDTNGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. G07 



¥ 



gradually narrow from base to apex, is so characteristic tliat this difler- 

 eijce can l)e perceived even with the naked eye. I have only two speci- 

 mens of H. scohiuosus, but 1 send you one of them. If j'ou succeed iu 

 collecting more specimens, you will be able to ascertain whether Ave 

 have to deal here with a good species or merely with a variety. 

 The synonymy of the si)ecies here discussed is as follows: 



1. JIi/lasti')i porciilKs, Erichson {l>>->('>] = c<irb(>)t((rius, Yiteh (1851) = 

 tavernosiis, Zimmennaim (ISOS) = ^//vn^o.sH.s, Chapuis (1809). 



2. Hylastcs salchrosus^ Eichhoft' (spring of 18(>S) = scahripexnis, Zim- 

 mermaun (fall of 18G8). 



3. Ui/la.stes ficohinosiis, Eichholf (18(!8). 

 [After a careful study of Erichson's description of H. porculus, I have 



come to the conclusion that Eichhoff's proposed synonymy will have to be 

 adopted; Zimmermann probably never saw Erichson's description, and 

 Dr. Le Conte misinterpreted it. Fitch's description of H. carhonarius 

 is altogether too indetiuite to peimit any identification, but since H. 

 porculus is the commou species in the jSTortheastern States and H. sale- 

 brosus more southern in its distribution, the probability is that Fitch's 

 species is H. porculus. Of II. scohinosus I only saw the single type 

 specimen sent by Eichholf to Professor Kiley, and can only say that it 

 represents a si)ecics distinct from H. salchrosus.] 



DENDROSINUS GLOBOSUS, Eichhoff. 



Of this species I received about twenty-five years ago two specimens 

 from Dr. G. Kraatz. labeled '-North America.'' Whether or not the 

 locality is correct 1 am unable to say. I have never seen other speci- 

 mens, but Chapuis ]iiust have received it also from South America. 

 One of my specimens is herewith sent you. 



[This is such a remarkable and easily recognizable insect that if it 

 really belonged to our fauna it would have been rediscovered long ago. 

 Dr. Le Conte was quite right in rejecting it from our lists.] 



Genus HYLESINUS, Fabricius. 



From the specimens of II. aculcatus, Say, sent me by you, I have fully 

 convinced myself that Chapuis erroneously considered and described 

 as II. aculeatus specimens of II. inipcrialls, which 1 had submitted to 

 him. These are undoubtedly two quite difterent species. But at the 

 same time I ha\ e been confirmed in my old supposition that II. pruino- 

 sus, Eichhoff, of which I i)Ossess only a single specimen, constitutes a 

 third North American species with variegated color of the np])er side, 

 linally, I have in my collection a specimen said to be from North 

 America which I am unable to se]>arate from the European H.fraxini. 



[II. aculeatus is <|uit(' variable in the coloration of the ui)per side, and 

 it is by no means apparent upon what reasons Mr. Eichhoft" considers 

 his H. pruuwsus as distinct from H. aculeatus. II. fraxini is readily 

 distinguished from //. aculeatus or H. imperialls, but I have never seen 

 specimens from North America.] 



