286 Forty-fourth Report on the State Museum 



specimens were quite different in features, and even belonged to 

 another group from that of rvfimanvs, viz., to that of pisorum. In all 

 probability, examples of it had served Dr. Horn for his description of 

 B. rufimanus, in his Monograph of the Genus, and accordingly, a 

 specimen submitted to him was referred to that species, as i^ossibly a 

 climatic variety, in Consideration of some differences to which his 

 attention was called. 



Compared with B. rufimanus. 



The principal points of difference, by the aid of which B. lentis is 

 readily separable from B. rufimanua, have been succinctly noted in a 

 letter from Dr. Hamilton ; they are these : 



1. In the eyes. In the European insect [rufimanus], besides the 

 emargination, there is on the upper or inner side an inscribed line 

 that nearly sejDarates the lobe in two parts; in the Buffalo insect no 

 such line exists or it is merely traceable. 2. The very obvious differ- 

 ences in the form of the thorax — the American short and transverse, 

 the European longer and narrowed anteriorly. 3. The tooth at the 

 side of the thorax in both sexes of the American; that of the Euro- 

 pean (sexes not observed) can scarcely be called a tooth, but is rather 

 an undulation in the side of the thorax. (The purpose of this 

 unevenness in the thoracic margin, whether tooth or undulation, is for 

 the reception of the femoro-tibial articulation of the anterior legs 

 while the insect is in the seed.) 4. The tooth of the posterior femur 

 in the American seems acute, as in pisorum, while in the other it is 

 rather a lamination. (The examination was made with a lens; the 

 insects should have been relaxed and then observed under a micro- 

 scope. This, of itself if sustained, would alone be specific.) 5. 

 There is a row on each side of the ventral segments of dense 

 cinereous pubescence in the American — not observed in the others. 

 6. Part of the middle legs of the American is rufous, but color would 

 not be specific. 7. The general sculpture of the European is much 

 coarser; the strise of the elytra ai*e deeper, the intervals wider, and 

 the transverse rugge are wider. 8. The American form is one-half 

 smaller (this alone would not be specific). 



Identified in Europe. 

 As it seemed probable that the insect was an introduction from 

 Europe, an example was sent, through Miss Ormerod to Mr. O. E. 

 Janson, of London, for comparison with European foi*ms. The 

 following very satisfactory answer, giving the result of the critical 

 comparisons, was returned: 



Not being able satisfactorily to identify the Bruchus, I forwarded 

 it to my friend Dr. Sharp, who has quite recently worked at the 

 group and published a monograph of the Central American species. 

 He writes me that he thinks that there can b^i no doubt that it is the 

 Bruchus lentis Bohem., and that he can see no difference between 

 the specimen and European examples. Upon comparing it myself 

 with Boheman's description, I found that it possessed denticles at the 

 sides of the thorax, which Boheman says do not exist in lentis. I 

 therefore pointed this out to Dr. Sharp, and he writes me in reply: 



