Coleopterological Notices, III. 123 



the male. Prosternal process horrizontal, tumid posteriorly, then abruptly 

 vertical and excavated to the level of the prosternal side-pieces. Legs and 

 tarsi throughout as in Hymenorus. 



The general form of the body approaches some of the species of 

 Cistela or Isomira, but apart from the characters above mentioned 

 the genus is very closely related to Hymenorus. Some of the 

 species of the latter genus such as inquilinus, fusicornis and 

 porosicornis are more or less allied to Menoeceus, but the form is 

 narrower, the prothorax less transverse, and the basal angles not 

 posteriorly produced. This last feature constitutes really the only 

 important difference between Menoeceus and Hymenorus. 



One species, which however differs from the typical form in 

 having the prosternal process and antennae as in Hymenorus, is 

 described in the Biologia by Mr. Champion from southern Texas; 

 I have seen no representative of it, but the original description is as 

 follows : — 



m, texailUS. — "Ovate, rather broad, piceous-brown, dull, thickly pubes- 

 cent. Head sparsely and rather coarsely punctured; eyes (%) very large, 

 narrowly separated ; antennae (%) stout, rather short, ferruginous ; prothorax 

 very broad, the disk obsoletely canaliculate behind, the surface closely (but 

 not densely), finely, and shallowly punctured ; elytra finely punctate-striate, 

 the interstices quite flat and finely and rather closely punctured ; legs ferru- 

 ginous ; the lateral lobes of the last ventral segment broad and spoon-shaped 

 and clothed with long hairs at the apex." Length 7j mm. ; width 3i mm. 



This species is stated to be much broader than M. crassicorms, 

 with the pronotum more finely and sparsely punctured. 



TELESICJLES Champ. 



This genus is very closely related to Hymenorus, the characters 

 throughout being similar, with the exception of the form of the 

 prothorax, the apex being transversely truncate and the sides con- 

 vergent toward base and feebly sinuate ; this form is however so 

 radically different from anything known in Hymenorus, as to give 

 quite a distinct and peculiar habitus to the species of Telesicles, 

 and there can be but little doubt that the genus is a really valid 

 one. It is simply a good illustration of the statement made in the 

 introductory remarks to the present family, that generic differences 

 often depend more upon general facies or appearance than upon any 

 decided modification of special organs. 



