4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 94 



of small Staphylinidae are given in Memoir 2, page 2, 191 1, while in 

 Memoir I, page i, 1910, objections are made to the European method 

 of mounting on cards. 



The collection contains considerable amounts of exotic material, 

 both named and unnamed, in nearly all the groups monographically 

 studied, especially in the families Scarabaeidae, Staphylinidae, Cur- 

 culionidae, Tenebrionidae, and Cryptophagidae. The regions repre- 

 sented are chiefly Europe, Mexico, and Central and South America. 

 There is also a quantity of undetermined North American material, 

 the bulk of it in those families not critically studied by Casey. 



Here and there throughout the collection stand specimens labeled 

 simply " L ". These are part of the old Levette cabinet, concerning 

 which Casey says (Coleopterological Notices, 2, p. 501, 1890) : The 

 material is " from the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, and Colorado, 

 much of which was probably collected by Morrison ". In recording 

 locality for those " L " specimens surmised to be from the eastern 

 part of the United States, Casey generally suggests either " Indiana " 

 or " Indiana? "; for those thought to be of western origin, he often 

 gives Colorado. A good many of Casey's specimens bearing label 

 "Ari " or "Ariz " are probably Levette collection material. 



The abbreviation " typ.", which" frequently appears on the name 

 labels of species of other authors, stands for " typical " (not " type ") 

 and shows that Casey regarded the specimen as a typical example be- 

 cause of its agreement with the original description or with the actual 

 type. Considerable reliance can be placed on such determinations, 

 especially in the case of Leconte or Horn species, with the types of 

 which Casey compared much of his material.^ 



Name labels reversed or folded generally indicate that Casey re- 

 garded the specimen as incorrectly determined, or considered the spe- 

 cies a synonym. In a few cases name labels were folded for no 

 apparent reason other than to reduce their size. 



Compared to most modern collections, the Casey Collection contains 

 a rather small average number of specimens per species, though this 

 condition would naturally follow in the case of a private cabinet where 

 species lines are closely drawn. However, Casey's series were often 

 ample, including from several up to 20 or more specimens, and more- 

 over there is evidence, in the case of certain species, that he examined 

 many more specimens than now appear in the collection. For example, 



* In Coleopterological Notices, 5, p. 599, 1893, Casey says that Centrinus canns 

 " is the only species not described from the original type or a specimen care- 

 fully compared therewith". There are many statements of similar purport in 

 his writings. 



