10 



pronotal carina, which does not reach the eye but curves 

 far down on to the pleura. The head is very little, if any, 

 narrower than pronotum. The clypleus is strong-ly convex, 

 very broad at base, suddenly strongly narrowed beyond the 

 middle to the rounded apex. In these characters it is 

 entirely distinct from all true Macropsis and I here separate 

 it as the type of a new g-enus, Stnifi^aniop^is. 



Since writing- on Macropsis in l*syche, I have collected 

 considerable additional material in Nevada, California and 

 Central America. I have already presented a reply to 

 Ball's criticism of my paper. Further study of new ma- 

 terial has afforded abundant additional evidence that some 

 of Ball's speculations concerning- the species are most ill- 

 founded. 



The species humilis and niiscUa were described by Stal 

 from Mexico, the latter from Vera Cruz. No structural 

 characters of specific value are g-iven in the descriptions. 

 The leng-th of both species is ^iven as 4 rtim. Colors only 

 are described and these are certainly somewhat variable in 

 this g-enus as in most Jassidct^ just as Ball says. The types 

 are probably in existence and should be g-iven careful 

 examination and description. Ball's reference of rufoscu- 

 tellata to misella would also warrant, and more plausibly, 

 the reduction of some forms of ruDusta also. In 1902 I 

 collected in Nevada a g-ood series of rufoscutellata fairly 

 typical and uniform in characters, and I ag-ain insist that 

 there is no evidence whatever to indicate that it is more 

 closely related to misella than are several other species. 



The reference of atra, ina^nm and Californica to humilis 

 is still more uncertain and ill-advised and would sug-gest 

 the possibility of ag-g-reg^ating- all Macropsis into one 

 species. Not only are atra, ma^ma and Californica widely 

 distinct from each other and from humilis in coloration, 

 but the three former present a number of pronounced 

 structural differences, and are very dissimilar in size. 

 Humilis is characterized by colors only, with a length of 4 

 mrn. There would be far better reason for reducing- Stal's 

 pallescens (which I have collected in Nicarag-ua) to humilis, 

 and Ball should have done it, to be consistent. It becomes 



