4 entomological news. [January, 



examples of both sexes of X. affinis labeled by Eichhoff and in 

 the Brussels Museum. (I now possess some by exchange and have 

 seen others of Eichhoff' s own series). 



The question at issue has been not the identity of the " cane- 

 borer" with X. affinis, which has been controlled by repeated 

 comparison of the two sexes with Eichhoff's types, but the iden- 

 tity of that species with X. perforans Woll. Since 1893 the 

 examination of some hundreds of specimens leaves me more 

 strongly than before of opinion that a separate name may well be 

 retained for each form, although one cannot always satisfactorily 

 refer individuals to one or the other. 



The published evidence leaves the occurrence of X. affinis in 

 the United States doubtful. In the posthumous paper translated 

 by Mr. Schwarz (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. xviii, pp. 605-6 ic, 1896) 

 Eichhoff, writing to Riley in 1892, says: "what X. pubescens 

 Zimm. is, remains for the present unknown to me, since among 

 the specimens which you send me as such I believe I can distin- 

 guish three species, viz., X. affinis Eichh., X. inermis Eichh., 

 and a third one." Now, inasmuch as a series of N. American 

 Scolytids had been sent to Eichhoff, this seems conclusive until 

 it is recollected that in the same year examples of the cane-borer 

 were sent from the West Indies to Riley and identified at Wash- 

 ington with X. pubescens. Were these included in the series 

 forwarded to Eichhoff, and did his recognition of X. affinis refer 

 to them ? 



No examples of X. affinis from anywhere north of Mexico, 

 where it is common, have yet reached me, and a series of X. 

 pubescens sent by Prof. A. D. Hopkins are all referable to X. 

 inermis. Possibly this latter species, which has not been found 

 in Central America, has by some means become regarded as X. 

 affifiis, and is the one referred to as such by Mr. Hubbard. 



Whatever the cane-borer's name is, the evidence of its distri- 

 bution drawn from existing collections points to its being neo- 

 tropical and having occurred throughout the West Indian islands 

 long before it was noticed to attack canes. I cannot accept the 

 suggestion (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash, iii, p. 171) that it was im- 

 ported in ribbon-cane from Ceylon, because I have never seen 

 its typical form from Ceylon, though I have examined many 

 Scolytids from that island. Nor is any damage to canes recorded 

 therefrom. 



