286 CASEY 



The genus Eurymeiopon Esch., has apparently been miscon- 

 ceived hitherto. Its type was named rujipcs by Eschscholtz, 

 and said by that author to be from Cahfornia, — I believe with- 

 out further indication of locality. Mannerheim, in subsequently 

 describing the species, gave a series of characters that undoubt- 

 edly belong to the genus that we have been calling Euryme- 

 tofon^ but stated that it occurs near San Francisco, which is 

 presumably an error, no example of the forms with everted 

 tibial angle being known from above the latitude of Santa Bar- 

 bara or thereabouts, they being confined to the Sonoran fauna 

 in California. Whence Mannerheim obtained his assumed rep- 

 resentative of riifipes is uncertain, and the description is not 

 sufficiently definite for identification, but I will regard it as 

 identical with the species subsequently described under the 

 specific name enoriiic by LeConte. We have therefore to fall 

 back upon the description of Lacordaire, which he states is 

 founded upon the species named rtifipcs by Eschscholtz and 

 represented before him, in all probability, by the original type. 

 This description does not fit any genus of the tribe known to 

 me, departing radically in the absence of the extremely constant 

 supra-orbital carina and in antennal structure, as shown in the 

 table below, from what we have become accustomed to know 

 by the name Etirymctopon, as identified from a supposed typical 

 example sent to LeConte and alluded to by Horn in his mono- 

 graph of the Tenebrionidse. It is rather more than probable that 

 the latter specimen was not a true representative of the species, 

 the mistake being due no doubt to hasty and careless identifica- 

 tion. Where Eschscholtz really obtained his type of rujipes, 

 which apparently belongs rightfully to the present tribe because 

 of the distinct scutellum and certain other characters mentioned by 

 Lacordaire, is not known, but it was certainly from the southern 

 part of the state or Lower California, if not Mexican, and must 

 have been from the immediate coast regions, as the interior of 

 the country had not then been explored. The supposed dupli- 

 cate of the original type of rujlpes, just stated to have been sent 

 to LeConte, proved to be identical with a species from the 

 Colorado Desert of California, previously named enornie by that 

 author, showing that it had been collected in that region and 



