858 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. XV, 



Several new forms have been recognized as additional sub- 

 species and varieties of this species; they could not well be 

 identified with hieroglyphica or any of its described varieties. 

 It was, therefore, obvious that the describing and naming of 

 these forms would materially lessen the difficulty in identifying 

 both hieroglyphica and confluens. In most cases and as far as 

 this study has revealed, these new forms are more or less 

 confined to certain geographical areas. 



Typical form: Vertex well produced, obtusely conical, about a 

 right angle; length of head, .8-.9 mm.; width, including eyes, 1.7 mm., 

 anterior lateral margins bulging from just before the eyes, taking up 

 with the obtuse apex, posterior margins rather evenly and strongly 

 arched, disk evenly and gently convex, a very slight depression between 

 the eyes and ocelli, sculpturing not very strong, general appearance 

 rather smooth. The general color varies considerably from yellowish- 

 gray to greenish, and from a brick-red to a grayish-green or brown 

 with indistinct spots and blotches on head and pronotum, with the 

 characteristic black markings surrounding an imaginary light T and 

 usually with streaks, more or less conspicuous, and dark veins on the 

 elytra. Males and females of about the same color. 



Say, in his description of this species, mentions only one 

 color form, i. e., "dull rufous"; this must then be considered 

 the typical color. It is found very commonly in this color, 

 from which it varies into several other colors as mentioned 

 above. 



The "slaty form" mentioned by Dr. Ball, 1901, should, 

 without doubt be referred to the variety dolobrata rather than 

 to hieroglyphica, (see variety dolobrata). This color transition 

 is more evident in the females than in the males of these two 

 forms. 



In Van Duzee's Catalogue, 1917, the distribution for this 

 species and the there mentioned three varieties is given in 

 common. It seems obvious and quite important that the dis- 

 tribution should be considered apart for each of these forms, 

 at least in this case. Dr. Ball, 1901, arranged them in two 

 groups and gave the distribution of each group, which was 

 more nearly correct. These two groups will not always be found 

 in the same territory; at least one of the groups has quite a 

 distinct distribution. There are several other closely related, 

 yet undescribed forms (which will be treated in the pages to 

 follow), that have been the cause of a good deal of confusion 

 and it is obvious that local distribution must be considered for 



