180 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL, 92 
Neopityophthorus Scent, Arch. fiir Naturg., vol. 7, pp. 180-182, 1938 ; Anal. Esc. 
Nac. Ciene. Biol. México, vol. 1, pp. 346-347, 1940. (No genotype designated. ) 
The genus Veodryocoetes Eggers contains beetles allied to Conoph- 
thorus, with cylindrical body, weakly sculptured pronotum and elytra, 
the latter having setal rows on the interspaces in the posterior half 
only; head convex, eyes large, coarsely faceted, emarginate; antenna 
with 5-segmented funicle, club obovate with net suture notched at 
sides, with row of setae and strong septum, incomplete at center, second 
and third sutures indicated only by strongly arcuate rows ar setae ; 
pronotum evenly arched, without hump, with anterior half finely and 
densely asperate, posterior half finely punctured, margined at sides 
and base; elytra finely punctured in rows, declivity weakly to strongly 
arched, without especial modifications. 
Schedl’s genus Neopityophthorus is described as usually rather 
shining, stout to slender; antennal club short oval to circular, the notch 
and septate suture similar to that in Neodryocoetes, the septum not 
so strongly developed and not so strongly arcuate; pronotum like 
Pityophthorus with summit and transverse impression; elytra ¢cylin- 
drical, usually strongly shining, finely sculptured, declivity arched to 
weakly impressed. 
The writer is acquainted with 18 species in the combined Weodryo- 
coetes-Neopityophthorus group, 15 of which had never been previously 
described. A number of these species fall readily in one or the other 
of the groups, but others do not fit readily in either group. For in- 
stance, the antennal club of cubensis, new species, resembles more 
closely the structure characteristic of Veodryocoetes, but the pronotum 
shows very strongly the characters found in species of Neopityoph- 
thorus. On the other hand, hostélis, new species, has an intermediate 
type of antennal club, while the pronotum is distinctly Neodryocoetes 
as to dorsal contour but intermediate in respect to sculpture. These 
instances and others which could be readily cited seem to indicate 
that there is no sufficiently sharp line to justify the segregation of the 
complex of species into two distinct genera. I believe, therefore, that 
Neopityophthorus Sched] should be considered as no more than a sub- 
genus of Meodryocoetes Eggers and am so using it in this paper. 
The most reliable characters separating the two subgenera have to 
do with the dorsal contour and the sculpture of the pronotum. The 
dorsal line of the pronotum of typical Veodryocoetes is evenly arcuate 
from base to anterior margin, without an elevated summit or transverse 
impression. The anterior half of the pronotum is usually finely, rather 
densely asperate with the asperities continued behind the middle, but 
reduced greatly in size. These reduced asperities often consist of only 
a slight elevation of the lateral rim of each puncture. In some species 
even the punctures of the pronotal disk have the lateral rim slightly 
elevated. 
