148 THE SCOLYTID BEETLES. 



prevailing black or dark color, the more uniform and coarser punctures 

 of the pronotum, the narrower epistomal process, with the angles more 

 tuberculate, and the less evident long hairs on the anterior dorsal 

 area of the elytra. 



Revisional notes. While the type of this species has not been seen 

 by the writer, it is clearly evident from Olivier's description and 

 figures (Olivier, 1795) that the large black form common to the 

 southern United States represents the species described. The only 

 distinctive specific character mentioned, however, is the reference to 

 the Black Scolytus and to the body being black, brown, or brownish- 

 black. The confounding of Dendroctonus valens and D. terebrans under 

 the latter name has resulted in much confusion in the literature. With 

 our present knowledge, however, it is not difficult to clear up some 

 of the confusion and to revise and correct the literature so that it 

 may be known in many cases whether or not one or both species was 

 included in a given reference. Erichson, 1836, Lacordaire, 1866, and 

 Chapuis, 1869, evidently did not compare D. valens and D. terebrans. 

 While a specimen of this species has been in the Harris collection since 

 1839, Harris apparently made no reference to its characters. Zimmer- 

 man, 1868, page 149, did not mention D. valens, but evidently had the 

 two species confused in his revised description. Le Conte, 1868, page 

 173, referred D. valens to D. terebrans, and in 1876, pages 384-385, 

 confuses the characters and distribution of the two species. Dietz, 

 1890, page 29, included this species under his variety a, and (p. 30) 

 evidently includes two specimens from Florida under his revision of 

 D. rufipennis. In subsequent literature up to 1906 there is more or 

 less confusion of this species with D. valens. The writer, 1906c, page 

 81, restored D. valens Lee. and called attention to the characters dis- 

 tinguishing D. terebrans (Oliv.) . In 1900 the writer found one specimen 

 in the Harris collection, under Hylurgus terebrans, under his No. 99, 

 referred to in his note as "Dark specimen abundant under bark of 

 pitch pine, October 27, 1839," but it appears that no reference was 

 made to this dark specimen in any of his publications. The locality 

 is not given, but it is presumably. Cambridge. It appears that this 

 species was not represented in the Horn collection under D. terebrans 

 when Doctor Dietz prepared his revision, and that the only example 

 involved in the revision under D. terebrans was the one in the Ulke 

 collection from Pennsylvania, designated as " variety a." Two exam- 

 ples were found in the Horn collection under D. rufipennis, labeled 

 "Fla.," and it was evidently on these that Doctor Dietz based his 

 Florida locality in his revision of D. rufipennis. In 1907 this species 

 was represented in the Le Conte collection by 9 specimens and 8 addi- 

 tional specimens in the general collection of the Museum of Com- 

 parative Zoology. 



