180 Psyche [October 
verse, more than twice as broad as long, very closely, finely and evenly granulate; 
mandibles coarsely rugose in the middle on the outer side; clypeus trapezoidal, 
much longer than broad and about half the width at its posterior margin from what 
it is at apex; space between the base of the mandibles and the eyes very short; 
the eyes narrow and elongate, the cheeks behind the eyes not much developed; 
front between the base of the antenne triangularly raised, the surface flat; antennz 
short and robust, the basal two or three joints of the flagellum moniliform; the 
ocelli in a shallow arch on the vertex. Thorax, closely, finely and evenly granulate, 
broadly oval; pronotum transverse very narrow; mesonotum with longitudinal 
parallel short impressed lines; scutellum crescentic; median segment short roundly 
and obliquely truncate, the triangular area at base coarsely longitudinally rugose; 
pro-, meso- and metapleure rather flat. Abdomen: comparatively massive, smooth, 
the basal segment with very sparse minute punctures, posterior segments with 
scattered erect hairs. Length of 9 6 mm.; expanse 11mm. The labels on the 
specimens bear no precise locality— simply ‘‘U. S. America,’ ” 
The more important characters in which the female of P. 
affinis Sm. differs from the female of P. zizi@ Robt., which was 
formerly identified as Smith’s species, are the much broader head 
and the absence of a yellow spot on the base of the costal nervure. 
They also appear to differ in distribution. Smith described three 
species of Prosopis from North America: P. basalis was from 
Hudson’s Bay and was collected by G. Barnston; P. confluens 
was from St. John’s Bluff, East Florida, and was collected by E. 
Doubleday; while the label of P. affinis gives only “U.S. America” 
as the locality, the British Museum Catalogue gives the locality 
as “Hab. North America, (E. Doubleday, Esq.),”’ from which it 
may be inferred with much probability that it was collected in 
East Florida in the same locality as P. confluens. If this supposi- 
tion is correct, then we may have been looking for P. affinis in a 
part of the country in which it does not occur. The characters 
and distribution of P. zizie, therefore, appear to differentiate it 
from P. affinis, though undoubtedly the species are closely allied. 
Prosopis binghami sp. nov. 
1853. Prosopis affinis Sm. @ (not 9), Cat. Hym. Brit. Mus. 1:24. 
The male assigned to P. affinis evidently does not belong to it, 
but is a distinct species. After a careful comparison of the male 
and female types Colonel Bingham writes under date of November 
5, 1907, “I am disposed to agree with you that o@ and 9 P. affinis 
Smith belong to distinct forms.” Itake great pleasure in dedicat- 
