92 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. i04 



M. atratus Olivier is well distinguished from the other Nearctic 

 species by its large size (length 3-4 mm., width l.G-2.1 mm.) and by 

 the following combination of its principal external characters: the 

 black color of its upper surface except for the reddish translucency of 

 the explanate side margins of the pronotum, its yellowish legs and an- 

 tennae, the fine close punctures of its upper surface which on the 

 elytra are elongate and finely cross-rugose, the nonreticulate surface 

 between the punctures, and the evenly finely crenulate outer edge of 

 its front tibiae. Added to these features are the characteristic forms 

 of aedeagus and ovipositor that are shown in figure 7Q,g-k. 



Meligethes rufimanus LeConte 



Figure 77,a-e 



In 1857 LeConte described the species Meligethes rufimanus and 

 M. moerens from examples taken in California and Oregon, respec- 

 tively. Two years later he published the description of a third species, 

 M. ruficornis, taken at Platte River, Kansas. The first two came 

 subsequently to be accepted as identical, while the name ruficornis 

 was found to be a homonym, Heer having used the same epithet in 

 1841. Consequently, in 1868, Harold changed this latter name to 

 mutatus. 



In 1871 Reitter, from a specimen taken by Kirsch in California, 

 described briefly his variety califiornicus of AI. aeneus Fabricius; 

 clearly, he did not regard this American beetle as exactly identical with 

 Palaearctic examples, though little evidence is apparent from his 

 descriptions as to the grounds on which he based the distinction. 



At a subsequent date Reitter sent a specimen of M. californicus to 

 Horn, in America, who compared it with examples of rufimanus and 

 found the two "perfectly identical," a fact that he recorded in 1879. 

 Because of this identity, both M. rufimanus LeConte and M. moerens 

 LeConte came to be regarded as synonymous with M. californicus 

 Reitter; later, all three were sunk as s^monyms of M. aeneus Fabricius, 

 and the latter name became included in the Nearctic list. 



M. mutatus Harold, however, m spite of Horn's doubts as to its 

 distinctness from rufimanus LeConte, maintained its specific identity, 

 and was so treated by Parsons (1943), although he too found its dis- 

 tinction from aeneus Fabricius obscure and difficult of interpretation. 

 Both these authors, moreover, stressed the variability of both species. 

 Horn appeared doubtful as to the logic of avoiding further specific 

 subdivision of mutatus, while at the same time retaining its distinctness 

 from rufimanus on equally feeble characters, and Parsons considered 

 that the variations of aeneus were sufficient to include mutatus within 

 their range. 



