66 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 92 
indefinitely defined area near the middle and also along the sides and 
at apex. Below, the breast is reddish brown, the abdomen a little 
lighter, the legs pale, abdomen lightly pubescent and punctate, the 
first tarsal joint of the hind leg longer than the rest, a tiny spur on the 
tibiae. 
LeConte stated in his description that he had only one specimen 
and that from Arizona. Besides the type there are other specimens in 
his collection from Texas and Kansas, none of which is the same 
species as the type, and since they were undoubtedly added later, 
they are not of consequence in this discussion. 
Schaeffer described Monolepta crucigera from a series of specimens 
taken in the Huachuca Mountains, Ariz. Apparently he did not con- 
sider at all the possibility that the species might belong in the genus 
Luperodes or might have been previously described. He placed it in 
the Monoleptides chiefly on account of the closed anterior coxal 
cavities. As he writes, the dark marking on the elytra is very 
variable; ‘‘in some specimens the elytra may be more properly called 
black with a large basal and an elongate apical spot pale.”’ The dark 
sutural spot may widen in the middle of the elytra so as to extend to 
the lateral margin, thus forming a cross, or, again in Schaeffer’s series 
of specimens, the elytra may appear nearly pale with only a dark 
sutural and lateral edge. Specimens similar to LeConte’s type also 
occur in his series. 
In his description of Luperodes marginalis from Alpine, Tex., Fall 
states that the species agrees very closely with varicorms, but that 
according to LeConte’s description, varicornis is entirely yellow, 
while his own specimens had more or less of piceous markings. At the 
time Fall was not able to consult the LeConte collection and knew 
varicornis only from its short description, in which, it is true, no 
mention is made of the brownish area about the suture. In the 
Fall collection at Cambridge, the specimen bearing Fall’s type label, 
a female, very similar to LeConte’s type specimen, also bears the 
label Monolepta crucigera, in Fall’s handwriting. Two others from 
Alpine, Tex., are placed in a row following two of Schaeffer’s labeled 
in Schaeffer’s handwriting M. crucigera. It would appear that Fall 
had discovered that his marginalis was the same as Schaeffer’s earlier 
described species, but apparently he had never compared it with 
LeConte’s type of varicornis, although he had earlier noted its strong 
resemblance to varicornis. 
Among Fall’s material from Alpine, Tex., both in his own collection 
and in some he gave to Bowditch, are some entirely pale specimens 
that he mentioned as immature in his description of LZ. marginalis. 
These are really a different species and are discussed farther on in 
this paper. 
