170 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Vol. xm. 



which the species stand precisely as now recorded in the Henshaw 

 list, viz.: 



nigrinus Dej. nebulosus Hald. 



kirbyi Horn. badiipennis Hald. 



atrimedius Say. nitidus Lee. 



In this treatment of the genus, tibialis is made a synonym of 

 nigrinus, nitidus (withdrawn from LeConte's Group B of Brady melius) 

 is admitted, and kirbyi is new, the brief tabular characters serving for 

 its description. 



The sole criterion offered by the " Classification " for the distinc- 

 tion of Tachycellus from Bradycellus lies in the number of glabrous joints 

 of the antennae, these being three in the former, and two only in the 

 latter genus. This character is assumed to be constant, but investiga- 

 tion shows that it is not strictly true of nigrinus, in which the third joint 

 is clothed somewhat sparsely in its apical half with the same kind of 

 pubescence as the following joints. The same condition exists in a 

 second species — turbatus — to be described in the present paper. 

 Another character of importance, mentioned by LeConte and Horn, 

 is the presence of squamules on the lower surface of the middle tarsi 

 in Tachycellus (except nitidus), and the absence of such squamules in 

 Bradycellus (except linearis). The two exceptions named were each 

 made the type of a distinct genus (Glycerius and Amerinus) by Casey 

 in 1884, both of which were shortly after repudiated by Horn. 

 The characters used by Casey seem, it is true, of somewhat trilling 

 moment, but the elimination of these two aberrant forms at least pos- 

 sessed the merit of leaving Bradycellus and Tachycellus more homo- 

 geneous, and separable by one constant character. I have not seen 

 Morawitz's description of Tachycellus, but from the remarks of subse- 

 quent authors it seems clear that he based the genus chiefly upon the 

 tarsal character above named, and laid little if any stress upon the 

 number of glabrous joints of the antennae, which for aught I know 

 he may not have mentioned at all. At all events they are not alluded 

 to by Seidlitz in his Fauna Transylvanica, nor does Ganglbauer use 

 the character in his more recent masterly treatment of the Kafer von 

 Mitteleuropa. The latest European Catalogue — that of Heyden, 

 Reitter and Weise — follows Seidlitz, who characterizes the genus thus : 



Tarsi above and eyes hairy; mentum toothed, scutellar stria rarely present; 

 presternum not margined in front, hind tarsi not grooved; male with a more densely 

 punctured and pubescent spot on the abdomen, just back of the hind coxie, and with 

 the front tarsi furnished beneath with two rows of squamules. 



