﻿144 New York State College of Forestry 



In 1895 Blandford* (pp. 220-225) redescribes the genus and 

 adds seven new species from Mexico and Guatemala. His generic 

 description is fuller and more definite and differs also in his recog- 

 nition of the sexual differences. The essential i:)ortions of his 

 description follows: "The antennae have a rather short, curved, 

 clubbed scape, a six-jointed funiculus, the joints of which are 

 moniliform, the third to the sixth transverse and increasing moder- 

 ately in thickness; the club is short-oval, compact, and shining, 

 crossed by two curved, fringed sutures. The tibiae are narrow, 

 slightly wider apically, the anterior pair unarmed, except for two 

 short spines at the upper apical angle. The elytra are more 

 or less strongly puiictate-striate, the punctures often much 

 dilated and cribriform posteriorly ; at the apex they are produced 

 into a common mucro, as in Mieracis. The sexual differences in 

 their structure are important and were not recognized by Eichhoff. 

 In the male the interstices become subcarinate as they approach 

 the declivity, round which they form a marginal series of short 

 teeth, carinae, or, in one species, acute spines, and they may be 

 elevated above the general surface so that the sides of the elytra 

 appear to diverge behind; the declivity itself may be convex or 

 retuse and nearly vertical, elevated near the suture alone, and it 

 may be sculptured differently from the horizontal portion. In 

 the female the elytra are regularly and strongly declivous behind 

 the declivity being convex, with no marginal tubercles round its 

 upper border." 



In his characterization of the genus Hagedornf (1910, pp. 118- 

 119) describes the eye as elliptical with the anterior margin emar- 

 ginate, and the antennal club as solid, without sutures. 



It is thus apparent that the characterizations of the genus 

 Hylocurus Eichh. contained several ambiguities and discrepancies. 

 This is especially true of the descriptions of the antennal club 

 which Eichhoff describes as "Solida" which might be translated 

 as "solid" (presumably without sutures) or merely as "compact." 

 His figure, however, shows two distinct sutures and Hagedorn is 

 manifestly wrong in describing it as "solid, without sutures." 

 As has been shown recently by the writer,J: the structure of the 

 antennae and the foretibiae are of the greatest importance in de- 

 termining the genera and species of this group. On the basis of 

 such differences especially, the North American species included 

 by LeConte in his genus, Mieracis were divided into three groups 

 of at least sub-generic grade : Mieracis represented by M. sutur- 

 alis and its allies; Pscudomicracis represented by 31. opacicoUis 

 Lee. and M. nanula Lee. ; and Micracisoides represented by 



* Blandford, W. F. H., 1895, Family Scolvtidae, Biologia Cent. Amer., Col., 

 Vol. IV pt. 6, pp. 81-298, 



t Hagedorn, M., 1910, G«nera Insectorum, Coleopt., Family Ipidae, pp. 

 1-178, 14 pi. ' 1 ' y V , iV 



I Blackman, M. W., 1921, North American Ipidae of the Subfamily Micra- 

 cinae, Miss. Agr. Exp. Stat., Tech. Bull., No. 9. 



