322 Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis. 



Drasilla Lch. 



Moderately stout and convex, feebly, the head and abdomen more gtrongly, 

 shining, dark red-brown, the head darker, the abdomen black sub- 

 apically; antennae dark brown, the basal parts and legs testaceous; 

 puactnres rather coarse, strong, very dense, obviously separated on 

 the head, sparse on the abdomen, which is very finely pnnctnlate, 

 more closely toward base, very remotely behind the second ter- 

 glte; vestiture fine, inconspicuous, more distinct on the abdomen; 

 head as long as wide, broadly arcuato -truncate at base, with distinct 

 though obtuse hind angles; eyes moderate, rather prominent; antennae 

 extending to the tips of the elytra, gradually and strongly incrassate 

 distally, the subaplcal joints slightly transverse, the second mach 

 shorter than the third; prothorax nearly as in canaliculata but much 

 less narrowed posteriorly, subparallel, with a nearly similar excavation 

 in the male; elytra larger, with less diverging sides, transverse, much 

 wider and shorter than the prothorax; abdomen broader than in 

 canaliculata, behind the middle rather wider than the elytra. Length 

 4.8 mm. ; width 1.0 mm. Alaska cavicollis n. sp. 



The single male type represents a species of the canalicu- 

 lata type but with much less rounded base of the head, stouter 

 form and other differences as noted in the description. 



Nototaphra Csy. 



In his recent general work on myrmecophilous and termi- 

 tophilous Coleoptera, Dr. Wasmann has redescribed JST. lauia 

 Csy., under the name Myrmoecia picta; he however denies 

 that the fault is his, implying that I was wrong in assigning 

 lauta to a genus different from Myrmoecia, which he of course 

 overlooked and so fell into a trap and described the species 

 under another name. The species of Myrmoecia appear to be 

 rare and it is only recently that, through the kindness of 

 MM. Fauvel and Reitter, I have been able to secure typical 

 specimens. On comparing these with Nototaphra lauta, I am 

 convinced that Nototaphra is a valid genus, the di:fferences 

 between Myrmedonia, as represented by funesta Grav, Myr- 

 moecia confragosa and plicata and Nototaphra lauta being 

 ■expressible as follows : — 



.Middle coxae narrowly separated, the mesosternal process broadly angulate, 

 the connecting isthmus longer and very narrow; integuments polished, 



