276 H. C. FALL. 



11. C inepta u. sp. — So nearly identical in form, size, sculpture, etc., with 

 oculata that it can only be distinguished from that species by the sexually modi- 

 fied eyes. These are obviously larger in the male, cleft for three-fourths their 

 length, the front subequal to or a little narrower than their vertical diameter; 

 smaller, widely distant and nearly divided in the female. The terminal joint 

 of maxillary palpus is slightly narrower than in oculata, but the difference is not 

 very conspicuous. The terminal joint of labial palpus and the anteuual struc- 

 ture does not differ noticeably from oculata. Length 1.8-2.3 mm. 



Hab. — New Jersey ; Florida (Enterprise and Crescent City) ; 

 Tennessee (Bowditch collection); Texas (Goliad, Schwarz). 



12. C. ovalis n. sp. — Form more narrowly oval (less rotundate) than in any 

 other species of the genus except frontalis. Eyes large in the male, cleft for two- 

 thirds their length ; front without trace of the median subcostiform elevation, 

 about equal in width to the vertical diameter of the eye. Palpi not clearly visi- 

 ble, but with the terminal joints apparently nearly as in oculata. Antenna; (%) 

 as in oculata. Length 2.1 mm. 



Described from a single male specimen collected by Hubbard 

 and Schwarz in the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona. The rela- 

 tively elongate form combined with the ocular structure are suffi- 

 cient to distinguish the species from any others at present known 

 to us. 



Ptilininl 



The rather striking resemblance which the species of Ptilinus 

 bear to certain Bostrychide genera has led to the belief — at least 

 among American entomologists — that they should be regarded as a 

 transitional form between the Anobiinse and the Bostrychidse, and 

 in the Classification by LeConte and Horn we find this genus 

 together with Euceratocerus constituting a separate tribe — the Ptili- 

 nini — and placed at the end of the Anobiinse. In this position they 

 are made to follow the Dorcatomini, the members of which differ 

 greatly from Ptilinus both in structure and appearance, and offer 

 only another instance of the incongruous associations which arise 

 from the necessity of arranging in linear sequence forms which 

 have in their development radiated from a common center, or have 

 diverged from a common stem. 



There can be no doubt that Ptilinus is a true Auobiide, and it 

 appears to me to be most closely allied to the central group — the 

 Anobiini — from which it has diverged in about the same degree as 

 have Petal i inn and Eupactus, and it is equally hard to place. The 

 resemblance to the Bostryelmhe is largely superficial, consisting 

 chiefly in bodily form, sculpture and the structure of the anterior 



