June, 1913-] ROBERTS: NOTES ON HaEIPLID.^ OF AMERICA. 93 



none, you may be sure, in either case, that you are dealing with two 

 distinct species and structural characters will be found to support the 

 varied maculation. 



The males can always be separated from the females, even when 

 determining the smallest species, by the form and vestiture of the 

 front and middle tarsi. 



In the males the first three joints are shortened and thickened, 

 more or less pedunculate, or produced, in many species, and are evi- 

 dently pubescent beneath, while the females have the joints simple 

 and more slender. 



These male characters vary among the different species but are 

 not very useful for specific definition, except in a few instances where 

 the modification is out of the ordinary, as they are entirely compara- 

 tive as to degree of thickening or production of the joints. For the 

 same reason I do not find the emargination of the labrum, mentioned 

 by Mr. Matheson, of much value in specific identificaition. An 

 analysis of his descriptions shows, in Haliplus, one species as " trun- 

 cate," seven " slightly emarginate," five " emarginate " and one 

 " strongly emarginate " ; in Peltodytes, one " scarcely emarginate " 

 and seven " not emarginate." This leaves too much to individual 

 estimation and view point to be of value, and might lead to confusion 

 unless used in comparing nearly related species as emphasis to other 

 characters, and even here the differences are too slight, so far as my 

 observation goes, to be appreciated. 



In the following paper are described one new species of Brychiits, 

 eleven of Haliplus and six of Peltodytes, bringing the total of our 

 described species of Haliplidse up to forty-three. I have no doubt 

 but that careful collecting, especially in the west and south, will 

 bring to light other undescribed species. 



In concluding these prefatorial remarks I wish to acknowledge 

 my debt to the late Frederick Blanchard. 



We examined and studied together the Leconte types and other 

 material at the Cambridge Museum, and I shall not soon forget the 

 week spent at his home in the study of his specimens, aided by my 

 compared specimens and the notes made on our museum trips. His 

 enthusiasm was contagious and his interest unflagging as my study 

 progressed, and his habit of close observation made his suggestions, 

 and always frank criticism, of great value to me. My acknowledg- 



