6 entomological news. [January, 



Trypodendron Steph. (1830) respectively, with which they are 

 coterminous. 



As has been pointed out by Eichhoff, his name Pterocyclon, 

 (1868), should replace Monarthrum Kirsch (1866). ' The latter's 

 diagnosis is absolutely the same as that of Corthylus Er. , in which, 

 too, a species of Ptcrocyclon was included. Erichson, Kirsch 

 and LeConte are alike incorrect in stating the funicle to be one- 

 jointed instead of two-jointed in these insects. Ferrari's sub- 

 genus Cosmocorynus is wrongly characterized by LeConte and 

 has no North American representative. 



Hylastes {Hylurgops) pinifex Fitch, is distinct from the Euro- 

 pean H. decumanus, differing in the thoracic punctures of two 

 sizes, the more rugose interstices and the longer and stouter 

 bristles of the elytra. 



Crypturgus atomus Lee. This has been regarded as identical 

 with C. pusillus Gyll. Specimens received from Prof. A. D. 

 Hopkins appear to be distinct, having the punctuation finer and 

 the ground sculpture different; but a more extensive comparison 

 is desirable. 



Tomicus plastographus Lee. = T integer Eichh. Californian 

 examples sent by Mr. Ricksecker and corresponding with Le- 

 Conte's description conform to Eichhoff 's type. 



Tomicus cacographus Lee. = T. grandicollis Eichh. 



Xylocleptes concinnus Mann. With Eichhoff, I should refer 

 this to Tomicus, or rather Ips. The structure of the mouth- 

 parts is not that of a Xylocleptes, but of a Tomicus, with which 

 genus its habits associate it. 



Pityophthorus lautus Eichh. Specimens forwarded by Prof. 

 Hopkins under this name do not correspond with Eichhoff' s 

 description. I conjecture them to be P. bisulcatus Eichh. , be- 

 cause they differ from the European P. micrographus L. precisely 

 as P. bisulcatus is stated by Eichhoff to do. 



Physiological Species. — Does Prof. Cockerell hold that species exist 

 which differ from other species only in physiological characters ? If so, 

 why does he not mention a single case and give the evidence ? If not, why 

 does he use term physiological species ? To me his article in the Decem- 

 ber News is not very clear. — Charles Robkrtson. 



