84 Mr. G. Lewis on 



Spilodiscus penulatus, sp. n. 



Ovalis, convesus, niger, nitidus ; fronte fftria Integra antice sinuata ; 

 pronoto striis 2 lateralibus integris hand parallelis; elytris 

 maciilis flavo-rubris, arcuatis, striis 1-3 integris, 4-5 apicalibus, 

 Buturali basi abbreviata ; mesosterno valde emarginato, stria 

 marginali integra. 



L. 3| mill. 



Oval, convex, black and sliining, frontal stria well marked 

 and sinuous anteriorly ; the thorax with two lateral striae, 

 strong and widest apart behind the anterior angle, inner 

 stria continued behind the head and is sinuous behind the 

 eyes, marginal stria fine and not continued behind the neck ; 

 the elytra, humeral striae wanting, except the short oblique 

 stria, dorsal 1-3 complete^ 4-5 short and apical, 4 with basal 

 appendage, sutural shortened about one-fourth from the base, 

 the red marking is arcuate in outline and very similar to 

 that figured for patagiatus, Lew. Biol. Centr.-Am., Col. vol. ii. 

 pt. 1, tab. V. fig. 13, except that the interstice between the 

 first and second strise is only red for a short space before the 

 base ; the pygidia are evenly but not quite densely punc- 

 tured ; the mesosternum is deeply emarginate and the striae 

 well-marked and complete ; the anterior tibiae are dilated. 



Hab. Nogales, St. Crus Co., Arizona (F. JV. Nnnen- 

 mascher) . 



Spilodiscus militaris, Horn, 1870, 



I have five specimens of this species ; one of them is 

 entirely black. 



Dendrophilus championi, Lewis, 1886. 



Bickhardt considers the above to be a variety oi punctatus, 

 j^erljst — that is, that it is not specifically distinct. I think 

 that the form of the dorsal striae and the structure of the 

 sternal plates are sufficient to class it as a species dis- 

 tinctively different. There is no question of the existence 

 of the differences, but Bickhardt doubts their specific 

 validity. I have only three examples, but I have seen 

 others and there are two specimens in the British Museum. 



Bickhardt has similar ideas regarding genera; in his 

 Catalogue he sinks 47 genera, calling them subgenera. I 

 think the name of a genus unused should be placed in the 

 synonymy. The late Mr. A. Matthews (Ann. & Mag. N. 

 Hist. p. 443, June 1893) says : " genera are at the best mere 



