80 TEIITIAIIY lillYNCHurUOEOUS COLEOl'TERA. 



I{(i;ni iiumntaiiis, wcstei'U Colorado, t'roiii tlic ricliest ))c(ls at siiininit ot 

 lilufls ovt'i'lookinu' liL-ad of East Salt creek. Our specimen, No. 157, U. S. 

 Geoloi;ical Survey. Also a, tliii'il speciineii, No. oUi, from either the Roan 

 mouutaiu.s or White river, U. 8. Geological Survey. 



Subfamily APIONIN^E. 



Since l)oth in Euroi)e and in America, the only Tertiary forms of this 

 family liave l)een referred to the genus Apion ( which contains all but one 

 of the numerous forms now existing in America), the reader is retei-red to 

 that irenus for the general remarks that miyht he looked for here. 



APION Herbst. 



A genus enormously rich in species, of small size, distributed all over 

 the world, but absent from Australia, and principally found in the northern 

 hemisphere. About seventy species are found in North America, and, as 

 may be imagined, are widely distriljuted, the larger number, however, heing 

 found in the southern half of the coiuitry. Half a dozen fossil species ha\'e 

 been found in Europe, i)rincipally in Brunstatt, and as many at Florissant 

 alone, while an additional species has been found in the Roan mountain 

 beds. It appears, therefore, to be somewhat characteristic in this country 

 of the Lacustrine fauna. 



All the species from Flori'^isant and the Roan mountains refei-red to this 

 o-einis appear to fall in the fourth section of Smith, in his last synopsis 

 of the species, and the Florissant species perhaps also in his group Ventri- 

 cosum; but the first species, at least, is very different from any of our modern 

 forms in the great length of the head, and in all but one of our fossil species 

 the eyes are farther from the margin of the prothorax than is conunon, and 

 the thorax is always more transverse. The same, too, may be said of the 

 other fossil species hitherto described from Brunstatt, Oeningen, and Rott, 

 by Fonster, Heer, and Heyden, six in number, if we separate, as I think we 

 must, the species described from Rott and the one from Brunstatt, doubt- 

 fully regarded as the same by Forster. 



