1 895-] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 177 



leads me to believe that we really have to do with two entirely 

 distinct species. In his synopsis of the Cicindelidce, Schaupp 

 merely says, in speaking of venusta; " differs (from formosd) in 

 being more slender and convex." In the table of species the 

 middle band is mentioned as being more perpendicular and the 

 size is given iox formosa 17-18 mm., for venusta 13-15 mm. 



Here, then, we have noted a difference in form, size and 

 markings; let us consider their value as indicating specific dis- 

 tinction. The latter is certainly of least importance, and of itself 

 would signify nothing; it may then be dismissed with the remark 

 that in all the specimens examined there is a small, yet constant 

 difference in this respect. Size also is usually of little or no 

 consequence, and yet among all our varieties of Cicindela there 

 are nowhere else any appreciable variations of size within specific 

 limits, with the single exception of dorsalis and its variety satdcyi, 

 and these are almost perfectly connected by media. The dif- 

 ference in form seems to me of more importance, and indeed has 

 no parallel among our species. Formosa is not only always 

 larger, it is also invariable stouter than venusta. A careful 

 measurement shows that the average ratio of length to width of 

 elytra is \n formosa 100-66^, and in venusta 100-60. The adja- 

 cent extremes are well separated, in fact there seems to be very 

 little variation in either case from the above averages. While, 

 then, we might not safely lay much stress on either of the above 

 differences by itself, their invariable association adds greatly to 

 the significance of each, and forms a mass of presumtive evidence, 

 which, in the absence of any positive proof to the contrary, 

 would ordinarily be considered conclusive. Fortunately, how- 

 ever, we need not stop here. In the form of the labrum we have 

 another means of separation. In venusta this organ is more 

 strongly produced in front and more feebly toothed. The dif- 

 ference is entirely independent of sex, and while not very great, 

 the practiced eye could accurately place every specimen by an 

 examination of it alone. 



Finally, in the emargination of the sixth ventral of the male 

 we have a character of the greatest importance. Every student 

 recognizes the exceptional value of secondary sexual characters 

 — their invariability rendering them when present of the utmost 

 service in separating closely allied species. In the males of 

 formosa and generosa the sixth ventral is broadly, feebly, trian- 



