NO. 1124. EE VISION OF THE MELA NOPL ISC UDDER. 3 < ) 3 



Lone Tree, Yakima River, Washington, July 18 (same) ; Spokane, Wash- 

 ington, July 21-22 (same); Loon Lake, Oolville Valley, Washington, 

 July 25 (same); Umatilla, Oregon, June 24, 27 (same); The Dalles, 

 Wasco County, Oregon, H. Edwards; The Dalles, Oregon, June 23, 

 Henshaw (Museum Comparative Zoology); California, Burrison (S. 

 Henshaw): Fort Reading, Shasta Valley, California, Lieutenant Wil- 

 liamson; Walker Basin, Siskiyou County, California, July 15, A. K. 

 Fisher (U.S.N.M.); Tehama County, California, Coquillett (same); 

 Agua Oaliente, Sonoma County, California, E. Palmer; Sacramento 

 County, California, Coquillett (U.S.N.M.); Atwater, Merced County, 

 California, July 29, Coquillett (same) ; Tipton, Tulare County, California 

 Orotch (Museum Comparative Zoology; S. H. Scudder); Santa Bar- 

 bara, California, July 1, H. W Henshaw, C. J. Shoemaker; San Buena- 

 ventura, Santa Barbara County, California, August 18 (U.S.N.M.); 

 Mohave River, California, O. Loew; Los Angeles, California, July, C. J. 

 Shoemaker; Los Angeles County, California, May, June, and in coitu 

 September, Coquillett (U.S.N.M.) ; Los Angeles, California (L. Bruner) ; 

 San Bernardino County, California, May, in coitu (U.S.N.M.); San Diego 

 County, California (E. Palmer; U.S.K.M.); Tighes Station, San Diego 

 County, California, E. Palmer. 



Bruner reports the species also from Nevada and Arizona. 



Palmer found this species on grassy slopes, beside brooks. 



The form enigma appears to be the only one found in the northern 

 part of the range of the species north of central Caliibrnia, and the 

 form collaris is rarely met with anywhere. 



The different forms have not been taken in coitu with each other, so 

 far as I know. The form jucundus besides having very short tegmina, 

 is noticeably smaller than the others. 



I can scarcely think the form collaris to be the insect described by 

 Thomas as Caleoptenus [sic] flavolineatus, 1 as Bruner has supposed. 

 Thomas's description very poorly fits it; he makes no mention of the 

 tumid prozona, and he states, both here and subsequently, 2 that it 

 closely resembles Melanophis spretus, and that the posterior margin of 

 the subgenital plate of the male is notched, whereas its general appear- 

 ance is very different indeed from M. spretus; so much so that it can 

 hardly be believed that anyone would select it for comparison ; nor has 

 the apical margin of the subgenital plate the faintest sign of any 

 emargiuation. Thomas's specimen was derived from Crotch's collection 

 in the Museum of Comparative Zoology; Crotch collected Oedaleonotus 

 enigma collaris in central, not southern, California, whereas Thomas 

 gave his C. Jtavolineatus from southern California. Thomas's description 

 does not at all fit any species from southern California which has come 

 under my notice, and until such a form occurs his name should go for 

 nothing at least until the Acridian fauna of that region is fairly well 

 known. 



1 Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr., I, No. 2, p. 68. 

 * Rep. U. S. Ent. Coram., I, p. 43. 



