98 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. m 



accurate conclusion can be reached by a consideration of the greater 

 degree of convexity and more shining surface of simplipes. Even so, 

 a very small residuum persists in which final determination is virtually 

 impossible, for here we are dealing with two species whose form of 

 aedeagus and ovipositor differ so little as to be useless in differentia- 

 tion. That such is the case should not be invoked as evidence of 

 identity of the two species, for in Europe also a parallel exists, in 

 which, however, one small additional character serves always as the 

 final criterion. I refer to M. aeneus Fabricius and M. viridescens 

 Fabricius, in which the chief differential characters, as in the case 

 under consideration, depend on the size and proximity of the punctm-es 

 of the elytra and the color of the legs. More closely finely punctured 

 examples of the latter species are often indistinguishable from more 

 diffusely punctured examples of the former, except by one small 

 feature — the inconspicuous yet constant angulation on the lower 

 edge of the intermediate femur in M. mridescens. 



The distribution of M. simplipes as deduced from material personally 

 determmed covers the following localities. 



Canada: Ontario: Michipicoten, Batchawana Bay. 



United States: New York: Greene County, Catskdl Mountains, 

 West Point, Trenton. New Jersey: Phillipsburg. Pennsylvania: 

 Easton, Allegheny. Maryland: Plummers Island, Hempstead. West 

 Virginia: Fairmont, Mannington, Fort Pendleton. Ohio: Adams 

 County, Highland County, Camden, New Concord. Tennessee: 

 Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Flat Top Mountain, Chestoa, 

 Unaka National Forest. 



Except for the following records, determination of the above 

 examples offered no difficulty: one example collected at Plummers 

 Island, Maryland, on June 6, 1909, by W. L. McAtee; one example 

 collected at Phillipsburg, New Jersey, on July 7, 1918, by J. W. 

 Green; and three examples from the Schaeft'er collection, now owned 

 by Cornell University (New York State College of Agriculture), of 

 which one bears a label "N. J." The first two would appear to be 

 genuine examples of M. simplipes Easton. The last three examples 

 give rise to greater diSiculty, and I should have been inclined to call 

 them ilf. rufimanus LeConte had not theh place of origin been so 

 much at variance with all my other experience. These three speci- 

 mens apart (and it must be remembered that one of them bears only 

 the hardly sufficient data "N. J."), we find a complete absence of 

 overlap in the areas of distribution of simplipes Easton and rufimanus 

 LeConte, a factor which may legitimately be taken into consideration 

 in the diagnosis of any particularly difficult example. 



