1911] Hypera and Phytonomus in America 387 



the name of Hypera. It is apparent that these include Germar's 

 material and would indicate that he had not changed the name 

 in his own collection. 



Why later writers (Jekel, Lacordaire and especially Fowler) 

 should attempt to fix other types for the genus Hypera I do not 

 know, unless I have overlooked papers to which they had 

 access. There is no clue to such literature in their articles. 



Capiomont in 1867-8 in his "Revision des Hyperides," 

 accepts this group as outlined by Lacordaire in the Genera des 

 Coleopteres, tome vi, p. 395. Capiomont creates several new 

 genera in the group and separates Phytonomus from Hypera, 

 but not on the lines given by Curtis. The paper is, however, 

 very valuable, as being the first thorough treatment of the 

 group after Schonherr. 



Kirsch and Kraatz, each publishing in 1871, contribute 

 nothing new to the separation of the groups included, neither 

 does Seidlitz in his Fauna Transylvanica in 1891. 



Petri in 1901 in his admirable monograph of the tribe 

 Hyperini closely followed Capiomont's work. He also gives a 

 very good list of the synonomy of the species. 



The larger European catalogues before 1901 usually treated 

 the genus Hypera with Phytonomus as a synonym or a sub- 

 genus. Weise in the Heyden, Reitter and Weise Catalog of 

 1906 has followed Petri except in the synonomy of the species, 

 where he recognizes "aberrations" for most of those forms 

 previously called varieties. This is certainly a step in the 

 right direction, since in the species I have studied these so-called 

 aberrations appear to be nothing more than forms due to one 

 of several causes and likely to appear in any generation of the 

 species. The term evidently should cover all such cases as- 

 immature specimens, color changes due to temperature or food 

 conditions, size forms, and specimens which have lost all or 

 part of their pubescence, especially the scales. Most of these 

 should never have been described, as is evident from the efforts 

 of both Capiomont and Petri to separate such forms from the- 

 typical species as they conceived it. 



The literature of the group is of considerable size as may 

 be judged from the bibliography of the species here treated. 

 Without doubt references have been omitted that should have 

 been given, but I trust that no serious omissions occur. The 

 effect of this large number of references has been to make the 



