The table and remarks which precede are made from the species 

 (the typical specimens) which Dr. Leconte considered as belonging to 

 the genus Aneflus. Two of the species are, however, doubtful as mem- 

 bers of the genus from the fact that in one (volitans) the antennae are not 

 at all carinate, while in another {tenuis) more faith than sight is required 

 to see it These two speciesgihould without any doubt be referred to 

 Psyrassa Pasc., if it is to be recognized. In the latter genus Paseoe in- 

 cludes our Elapkiiion unLolor, Rand. 



One of the essential characters of the group, Spherionides. to which 

 Psyrassa is referred, is the presence of carina; on the tibiae. This is cer- 

 tainly not the case in unico/or. ''The spine of the third antennal joint 

 is remarkably long; and this seems to be a good generic character" 

 (Bates, Biol. Cent. Am. V, p. 28). In unico/or the spine is rarely re- 

 markably long, never longer than one-third of the following joint, usual- 

 ly it is not longer than in villosum or truncalum. As far as the antennal 

 spine and the carinate tibiae volitans and tenuis are Psyrassa. Assuming 

 unLolor to be also a Psyrassa we observe a gradual fading out of all the 

 characters: the tibiae are very distinctly carinate in tenuis, scarcely so in 

 volitans and not at all in unico/or; the spine of the third joint of the an- 

 tennae is two-thirds the length of the next joint in volitans, one-half in 

 tenuis and less than a third in unico/or. After studying all the characters 

 of the species cited I can only quote the remarks of Leconte regarding 

 unico/or and apply them to the three species: "I can find no sufficient 

 characters for separating this as a distinct genus, much Jess placing it in 

 another tribe". In conclusion I would suggest that tenuis and volitans 

 be returned to Elaphidion and placed between subpubes^is and unicolor. 



EUSTROMA, Lee 



The antennae are stout, in the male as long as the entire body, in 

 the female much shorter. The antennae are not carinate in the same 

 sense in which that term is used for Aneflus and it therefore seems better 

 to place Eustroma in closer alliance with Elaphidion. 



The excavation of the underside of the antennal joints is more evi- 

 dent in the males. The oval patch of pubescence near the front angles 

 of the thorax is purely a male character and at the same time it is well 

 to note that the male femora are much stouter than those of the female 



The differences between Eustroma and Elaphidion are really feeble 

 and restricted almost entirely to the antennae: it will, however, be observ- 

 ed that the metastemal episterna are broader in Eustroma but parallel. 



Geo. H. Horn. 



