114 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [April, 



and cinereous. Superiors have the usual three small spots on outer third 

 of wing extending in a row from costa ; there is a row of small yellowish 

 white spots running across the centre of the wing in a line with the apex and 

 middle of the interior margin ; they vary in number in different specimens 

 from none to four or five. Inferiors immaculate. Underside: superiors 

 practically as above. Inferiors very finely mottled with light gray scales 

 and showing in centre of the wings a number of small, indistinct whitish 

 spots. The sexes are alike, except in the usual difference in size and the 

 female having less of the central spots on superiors above. This species is 

 dark as in via/is, ttysa, samosei and textor, and in markings nearest to 

 cenus, but is entirely different in color. 



Described from specimens from Blanco, Comal and Nueces 

 Counties, Texas. 



VE8PER0CTENUS FLOHRI Bates. 

 By Geo. H. Horn, M.D. 



The insect indicated by this name will probably remain unseen 

 to the vast majority of the readers of News, and would have 

 remained unmentioned here but for an article in a recent number 

 of "Ent. Mo. Mag." 



Vesperoctenus, at first glance, resembles a longicorn of the 

 Leptura series apart from its flabellate antennae, and was de- 

 scribed by Mr. Bates as allied to that series, especially to Ves- 

 perus, from which it partly derives its name. 



My knowledge of the insect came through a pair of males 

 collected in the Peninsula of California, and were referred to me 

 for study with the other Coleoptera collected there by the Cali- 

 fornia Academy of Sciences. I would certainly have described 

 the species as entirely new had not a timely visit from Mr. Flohr 

 prevented. 



In my paper on the Coleoptera of Baja California I could not 

 agree with Mr. Bates, but placed the insect in the Rhipiceridae, 

 giving my reasons and citing Callirhipis as a convenient point of 

 comparison. 



In the article in "Ent. Mo. Mag." Mr. Gahan defends the 

 opinion of Mr. Bates, and, of course, criticizes mine. 



At present I do not propose to continue any argument, having 

 said all that I deem necessary on my own part, and will leave to 

 others the adoption of either view. My comparison with Calli- 

 rhipis was, as stated, a mere matter of convenience from its flabel- 



