94 



Your 582 you labelled Brachinus cordicollis^ but, besides 

 other differences, there are no black spots on the antennfe. I 

 have begun to describe all my insects, and described this, but 

 gave it no specific name because it is your insect. Will you 

 tell me your present name ? In size it agrees with Say's B. 

 ct/anipennis, but the thorax is not narrower behind than in B. 

 fumans. Since I studied this genus I have found five species in 

 my collection, viz., 13, B. fumans^ 1211, B. suhcostatus mihi, 

 1210, B. gracilis mihi, 14, B. annulatus (formerly affinis) 

 mihi, 1126, your 582. Your medius and minuhis, and four 

 described by Dejean, are unknown to me. There are there- 

 fore eleven species now known. 



The insect which you sent me under the name of Dromius 

 hiplagiatus Dejean, is, I think, a true Cymindis. It is probable 

 that Dejean (if this be the insect he described) did not exam- 

 ine the labial palpi, which are securiform. 



HARRIS TO HENTZ. 



Milton, April 3, 1830. 



My 582, labelled by me Brachinus cordicollis Dejean, is one 

 of five or six specimens found at different times in the same 

 locality. Of two specimens noAV remaining in my cabinet, the 

 antonnre of one arc immaculate, and of the other, with the 

 usual fuscous spots on the third and fourth joints, and with a 

 much darker belly. These variations did not appear to justify 

 me in separating them, when, in other respects, they agreed so 

 nearly. I concluded that one was more matured, or had been 

 longei* transformed when captured than the other. 



I have never examined the sexual organs of Upis Icevis ; but 

 among twenty-five or thirty specimens, which at different times 

 I have had, I never found one with the boarded mentum 

 (labium) of U. barbatidiis ; and cannot supi)ose that among so 

 many there should not have been both males and females. 



