436 Coleopterological Notices, V. 



I cannot entirely agree with Mr Raflfray in considering the head 

 in Sonoma as even broadly tuberculate. If the front in this genus 

 has an antennal tubercle, it is difficult for me to conceive of any 

 method of distinguishing between the presence or absence of a 

 tubercle. Probably there is no such line of demarcation, but 

 assuredly if the front in Sonoma is tuberculate, there are very 

 few genera known to me which might not be forced by effort of 

 the imagination into this same condition. In my own opinion, 

 the tuberculate condition can only obtain when the front is strongly 

 narrowed and more or less prolonged, with the antennae approxi- 

 mate at base, the two supra-antennal prominences then come to- 

 gether, or nearly so, to form the tubercle. 



My reasons for maintaining the validity of this genus, which is 

 said by Mr. Raffray (Rev. d'Ent., 1898, p. 15) to be identical with 

 Sagola, are several. In the first place, the genus Sagola as consti- 

 tuted in the interesting work of Raffray, is evidently composite, 

 and the cephalic chai-acters alone of such species as excavata and 

 snlcata of Broun, show that these at least are very aberrant and 

 in all probability generically distinct. The peculiar frontal pit in 

 Sonoma is such a constant and characteristic feature, that any 

 decided modification of it is almost sure to be accompanied by other 

 striking differences. Again, the fact that in our own fauna we have 

 two distinct genera of this tribe, both conforming to the general 

 organization of Sagola, tends still further to indicate that neither 

 of them can be identical with that genus. Finally, the fact that a 

 considerable number of Californian species, all indeed known from 

 that region, have certain characters, previously disregarded but 

 here assumed to be of generic value, perfectly and completely con- 

 stant, tends to show that the genus Sagola as now organized is 

 really a group of genera, perhaps as truly so as the old genus 

 Euplectus. This will I think be admitted if, as in the present case, 

 the newly discovered species range themselves into groups having 

 certain peculiarities of abdominal, cephalic or thoracic structure in 

 common. The generic value of these characters will depend solely 

 upon their constancy throughout groups of species, and not upon 

 any previously assumed criterion of their relative importance. 



Our species are well characterized and may be distinguished as 

 follows : — 



Black or piceous-black, the elytra rufous ; antennae rather stout but of the 

 usual length isabellae 



