66 



reliance is to be placed upon Fabricius, and I advise you to ex- 

 amine Dumdril's figures of M. quadripustulatus. Having pre- 

 viously referred your 448 (^Uustrophus, as it certainly is,) to 

 M. hicolor Fabr., I was abominably stupid and careless in point- 

 ing out that species for your 807. Eustroplius hicolor ? Fabr. 

 and E. tomentosus Say, are both found in Massachusetts. Are 

 the nails of your supposed Serropalpus pectinated, as repre- 

 sented in your figure ? If so, it is not a true Serropalpus. 

 In quadrimaculatus Say, the head is nutant, concealed from 

 above by the prominent thorax, and the palpi are not as in 

 your figure. The penultimate tarsal joint of the hind legs is 

 very short ; the same in the hand, and the intermediate tarsus 

 is obcordate, hardly bilobed, or not much more than bifid, and 

 the nails are simple. Tlie genus Mycetopliila is known to me 

 only from LeConte's figure, in the Annals of the Lyceum of 

 Natural History of New York ; but perhaps your supposed Serro- 

 palpus may belong to it, or to Allecula Fabr. Your 201 here- 

 tofore has puzzled me exceedingly. I found my specimen in 

 Boston street, and recollected Rcemer's figure and description 

 at once ; but was astonished, on referring to his work, to per- 

 ceive that he called it Lymexylon navale, an European insect 

 with short antennas, Avliile his and my insect had long antennas, 

 and was an American species. At length I concluded Roemer 

 did not know the genus Lymexylon correctly, and therefore 

 labelled my insect (Edemera lloemeri^ which name it has borne 

 in my cabinet these three years. I think with you it may be a 

 Stenostoma. Your little scarlet Clerus ? 238 is probably the 

 insect which I call Opilus ? cocclneus, and alluded to in my last 

 letter. My specimen was captured upon a board fence. 



In answer to your queries respecting some of the Elaters^ I 

 remark, that finding no description in Fabricius which agreed 

 better with your 128 [128= Elater fascicular is Fabr., Hentz's 

 MSS. Catal.] than that of fascicularis, I thought it miglit be 

 a variety of that species ; but am not satisfied that this opinion 

 is correct. To an insect belonging to my subgenus Nothora, 



