PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 525 



tiuct. Not only do the segments of ^S'. lactarius greatlj^ exceed in num- 

 ber those of the curious little Lysiopetalids now under discussion, but 

 the secretion from the foramina repngnatoria of the former nuist be 

 copious, for Say remarks that " when irritated it discharges a lacteous 

 globule from the lateral portion of each segment, diffusing a strong and 

 disagreeable odor". And Cope remarks (Proc. Am. Ent. Soc, 1870, 

 p. 67) that '■'■ Spirostreplion lactariua exudes from a series of lateral pores 

 a fluid which has in its odor a strong resemblance to creosote". Whether 

 the genus Scoterpes is well enough characterized by the absence of eyes 

 may be a matter of opinion ; otherwise the form agrees too closely with 

 Trichopetalum to warrant us in being certain that it is not closely related. 

 Both 8. {Scoterpes) copei and the three known species of Trichopetalum 

 have no lateral pores, according to their describers, and are therefore 

 probably a pretty closely related group, especially since they closely 

 agree in the number of segments and the arrangement of the hairs or 

 bristles on the back. The figure given by Packard (Am. Naturalist, 

 V, 1871, p. 749) does not enable one to decide if it is male or female, on 

 account of the carelessness of the artist with the first five pairs of legs, 

 though it a])pears as if it were a female. Moreover, in the figure of the 

 head from the front he contradicts his description on page 748, where 

 he says : " No ocular depression behind the antennae, the surface of the 

 epicranium being well rounded to the antennal sockets." The figure 

 130 rr, on page 749. would fairly represent the front of the head of the 

 species which I shall describe farther on, only that the antennje are 

 relatively longer in Dr. Packard's species. 



Taking a retrospective glance at the genera of American Lysiopeta- 

 licke, we find that a single species has furnished the basis for the genus 

 Spirostr€j)hon, defined by J. F. Brandt, in 1841, in his Recueil. His des- 

 cription is only comparative with other groups of J uUflw of equal rank; 

 the family character of the Lysiopetalids (sterna rudimentary, not con- 

 joined with scuta) was used by him to define the genus Lyslopetalum. 

 Ju this way Spirostrephon was characterized, maiuly witli respect to the 

 characters presented by the maxillo-labial elements. Can it be consid- 

 ered safe, in view of the facts before us, to indiscriminately assign spe- 

 cies to a genus which has been quietly embraced amongst the ill-defined 

 forms which have been discovered since the family has been founded ? 

 To the writer the answer seems to be in the negative. No reference to 

 the characters assigned to the genus or the description of the typical 

 species of Spirostrephon has been made by some of the authors of Amer- 

 ican species of LysiopetaUdcc. The jiresent systematic condition of the 

 group is not good, and we are reluctantly forced to admit that it is very 

 little better than a mere list of names. While the intention is not to be- 

 little any one, there has been a very manifest lack of definiteness as 

 well as accuracy and comj)leteness of the descriptions. From the des- 

 cription of S. cavernarum, ? S. viidii, and ^S'. coiwi, we would be led to 

 infer that the anteuuie were 8-jointed, but when we observe Dr. Pack- 



