ColeopteroJofjical Notices, VI. 46T 



pared with C. theveneti (Col. Xot. III., p. 163). The third and 

 fourth segments in the males of certain small species with pale 

 elytra have a cluster of short radiating spinules in the middle. 

 The genital segment varies but little; it is generally emarginate 

 in the male and more or less truncate in the female, and is im- 

 pressed along the middle in both sexes. Beyond the genital seg- 

 ment the under part of the dorsal pygidium gives the appearance 

 of still another terminal segment; this inferior surface is more de- 

 veloped in the male. The fifth ventral in the fem.ale is always 

 more or less rounded, and its surface is sometimes feebly im- 

 pressed. In the male the inner spur of the anterior and middle 

 tibife is dilated, sometimes very strongl}^ while in several species 

 I have been unable to notice any modification of the spurs, and 

 in the male of sexualis the inner spur is dilated on all the tibite. 

 In a few species, such as fuscus, the anterior tibise are slightly 

 thickened or bent in the male, but as these tibial modifications are 

 rare and slight I have not searched for them with special care. 



The literature of this genus is confused in an inexplicable man- 

 ner. The typical form was described by Motschulsky, and the 

 genus limited by him to three species having uniform pubescence 

 without intermixed erect hairs, certain other species such as 

 yriseus and conformis, which, with the large material before me, 

 are not separable from Trichochrous, being at the same time made 

 the types of the genera Byturosomus and Emmenotarsus. When 

 Dr. LeConte published the first edition of the " Classification " 

 in 1861, he for some undiscoverable reason discarded all of Mot- 

 schulsky's names, and proposed " Pristoscelis " for the consoli- 

 dated genera of that author. This course was certainly unwar- 

 ranted, and however much it might be desired on personal or other 

 grounds to retain the name given by LeConte, I feel sure that 

 the adoption of it under the circumstances would be a violation 

 of the laws of priority, as well as some of the principles of ordi- 

 nary justice and equity. But even if we agree to adopt the name 

 Pristoscelis, the condition of the question is not materially im- 

 proved, because the original definition states that the prothorax 

 is " not serrate or ciliate at the sides," and this would exclude 

 all of Motschulsky's Trichochrous proper, as well as serricollis 

 and serridatus, which were subsequently added. 



In describing Byturosomus from the type ^ris<??<s, Motschulsky 

 changed the name to rujjpes, which of course could not hold, as 



Annals N. Y. Acad. Sct., VIII., July, 1895.— 33 



