NORTH AMERICAN GEOTRUPINAE — ^HOWDEN 157 



many erroneous observations had to be preserved in an otherwise 

 interesting book by a well known worker. 



Besides the papers already mentioned there have been a few others 

 that have added materially to our information on the Geotrupinae. 

 Very interesting papers and notes on the physiology of Geotrupes, 

 some dealing with their reaction to odors, have been published by 

 Vaternahn (1924), Warnke (1931, 1934), Dethier (1947), and Brues 

 (1946), Arrow (1904) discussed Bonification in some of the genera. 

 The morphology of the mouthparts of North American genera was 

 discussed and illustrated by Hardenburg (1907), and the structure of 

 the male genital tube of some European species was discussed by 

 Sharp and Muir (1912). There have also been a number of papers on 

 the parasites of adult and larval Geotrupinae by Chapman (1869- 

 1870), Hall (1929), Wetzel (1935), Theodorides (1949, 1950a, 1950b, 

 1951), and van Emden (1950). The most interesting and unusual of 

 these papers are those by Chapman (1869-1870). These and many 

 other papers mentioned will be discussed in greater length in a more 

 appropriate place. 



METHODS AND MATERIALS 



Horn (1868, p. 321) made the statement that he had never seen a 

 good series of all the species of Geotrupes in any collection, and the 

 situation to which this statement applied was stiU true in 1950. 

 However, many of the collections had excellent series of some of the 

 species, and through the generous loan of specimens from institutions 

 and individuals mentioned previously I was able to examine large 

 series of most of the species. 



Almost all of the distributional data contained in this paper were 

 taken from specimens personally examined, and aU localities were 

 checked in the U. S. Postal Guide or Eand McNally Atlas. Because 

 of the large number of errors found in Brimley's "Insects of North 

 Carolina" (1938, pp. 201-202), it was decided not to use records in 

 any local state lists. Some little known or imusual records can be 

 found in the following works: Beaulne (1942, p. 12), Brown (1940, 

 p. 74), Cartwright (1934, pp. 239-240), Davis (1904), Easton (1909, 

 p. 51), Frost (1920, p. 251), Gardiner (1879, p. 213), Gorham, Walker, 

 and Simpson (1929, p. 15), Loding (1933, p. 147), Nicolay (1913, 

 p. 125), Nylen (1929, p. 219), Snow (1904, p. 197), Townsend (1889, 

 p. 233), and Wickham (1894, p. 197). 



In addition to borrowed material, all of the type material that was 

 available in the eastern United States was studied. In some instances 

 where the type was not readily available, I was able to see paratypes. 

 Dr. Tuxen, of the Zoologische Museum, Copenhagen, and Dr. van 

 Emden, British Museum (Natural History), were extremely helpful 

 in comparing material with some of the Fabrician types. 



