NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN THYSANOFTERA 19 



A distinct little species, easily separable from all others of its genus by 

 the antennal coloration and the short wings. At the time of its capture 

 it was abundant on several cedar trees on the island, but was mistaken 

 for a commoner species, the error being detected too late to secure more 

 material. 



Haplothrips statices (Haliday). 



1836. PhI.[<Eothrips] Staiicei Haliday, Ent. Mag.. Vol. Ill, p. 442. 



1843. Hoplothrips statices Amyot et Serville, Hist. Nat. Ins. H^mip., p. 640. 



1852. PhlcEoihrips fiavipes Heeger, Situngsb. d. Akad. Wiss., Wien, Vol. IX, 



p. 127; Tab. XVI. 

 1883. Phlceoihrips nigra Osbom, Can. Ent., Vol. XV, p. 154. 

 1887. Phlceoihrips armata Lindeman, Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou, p. 335. 

 1895. Anthothrips statices Uzel, Monogr. d. Ordn. Thys., p. 237; Tab. HI, 



fig. 26. Tab, VII. figs. 128-130. 

 1895. Anthothrips nigra, idem, ibidem, p. 242. 

 1902. Anthothrips niger Hinds, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XXVI. p. 188; 



PI. VII. figs. 72-75. 

 1912. Haplothrips statices Kamy. Zool. Ann., Vol. IV, p. 325. 



1912. Haplothrips niger, idem, ibidem. 



This abundant, destructive species was redescribed by Osborn under 

 the name Phlosothrips nigra. The North American examples at hand 

 are inseparable from authentic European ones received from Mr. Bagnall. 

 It is often very abundant in the Howers of clover and the common daisy 

 (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.), and may possibly have been intro- 

 duced with the latter plant from Europe. 



Trichothrips flavicauda Morgan. (PI. I, (ig. 4). 



1913. Trichothrips flavicauda Morgan, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 46, p. 28, 



figs. 50-54. 



One female of this species was taken by the writer at Bluemont, Vir- 

 ginia, August 31, 1913, from a dead branch of papaw ; and two females 

 and one male were found by Mr. W. L. McAtee and myself under 

 dead willow bark on Plummer's Island, Maryland, October 5, 1913. 



The females agree well v^ath the original description of the species, but 

 the male differs from the description and drawing of that sex in the more 

 acute projections at the side of the eyes, the longer tarsal tooth, and the 

 longer fore femora, the latter just attaining the front of the head. These 

 discrepancies, though great, are probably due to individual variation. A 

 most unusual characteristic of the male seems to have been overlooked, 

 however, by the original describer. This is the presence on the inner 



