2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 76 



d'Europe, 1868, p. 18 (figure of Mcsagroicus ohscurus Boheman, pi. 30, fig. 

 146). — Gemm.noer and Harold, Catalog Coleop., vol. 8, 1871, p. 2203. — 

 Redtenbacher. Fauna Austriaca: die Kafer, part 2, 1874, p. 196 and cxxxi. — 

 Reitter, Bestim. Tab. eur. Coleop., heft 52, Paskau, 1903. 

 Lepiclocricus Pierce, Journ. Econ. Ent., vol. 3, 1910, p. 362. (Genotype, herricki 

 Pierce, Journ. Econ. Ent., vol. 3, 1910, p. 362, as designated by Pierce). — 

 Blatchlby and Leng, Rhyn. of N. E. Amer., 1916, p. 126. — Leng, Cat. 

 Coleop., 1920, p. 314. 



Mesagroicus includes rather small (3 to 6 mm. long) plain-looking 

 beetles, with no marked striictm^al or habital peculiarity. The fol- 

 lowing features are those which have proved useful for recognizing 

 members of the genus: The Sitona-\\ke appearance of the head, due 

 to the rounded, convex eyes, the quadrangular, medially grooved ros- 

 trum, and the lateral, strongly arcuate scrobes; the unusually short 

 fifth ventral segment; and the rather stout antennae. About half 

 the species (eastern) have a tuberculate pronotum; the remainder 

 (western) have more or less perfectly developed plumose scales on 

 the abdomen. The fore and mid tibiae are generally denticulate 

 along inner edge. The humeri are broadly rounded, and the elytra 

 much wider than the rather small prothorax. Metathoracic wings 

 rudimentary. The punctures on third, fourth, and fifth ventral seg- 

 ments are often much finer and denser than on the first two. With 

 free claws, a scaly and setose body, and lacking prothoracic ocular 

 lobes and vibrissae, Mesagroicus traces to the vicinity of Pantomorus 

 and Artipus, differing from the former by the shorter second funicular 

 segment, etc., and from the latter by the free outer striae of elytra, 

 etc. Other characters are mentioned in the key or illustrated by 

 outline drawings. An erroneous statement in Pierce's generic diagno- 

 sis (1910, p. 362) should be corrected here. The rostrum is said to 

 be separated from the head beneath "by very sharp and deep con- 

 striction," but, as a matter of fact, the junction of these parts is 

 perfectly normal — about as in Epicaerus or Pantomorus. 



There seem to be no dependable external marks for distinguishing 

 the sexes. When a series of both are present, the males can gener- 

 ally be told by their smaller size, narrower form, more slender beak, 

 longer mucro on hind tibia, and better defined concavity on base of 

 abdomen; the females by their distinctly shorter prothorax and by 

 the transverse concavity on fifth ventral. The latter character, 

 though variable in development and even slightly indicated on occa- 

 sional male specimens, is perhaps the one most useful for separating 

 the sexes. The tibial mucro is found on all three pairs of legs in the 

 male, and at least on first and second in female; on the hind pair of 

 female it may be present or absent on different specimens of the 

 same species. The median lobe of the male genitalia in the different 

 species shows slight but apparently constant differences. 



