WICKHAM: NEW MIOCENE COLEOPTERA FROM FLORISSANT. 4209 
District of Columbia. It diverges more widely from the percentages 
shown in Iowa, Indiana, and Colorado, while compared with Alaska 
and the southern shore of Lake Superior the Chrysomelidae are better 
represented at Lake Florissant. The Bruchidae show such a marked 
disparity as to call for instant comment — for while in the modern 
lists cited they constitute at the most less than ten per cent as great a 
number of species as the Chrysomelidae, in the Florissant fauna they 
reach nearly sixty-two per cent. Unfortunately no good or relatively 
complete lists of all three families exist for localities in the southwestern 
states, but it is well known that the Bruchidae are more abundantly 
differentiated specifically in that district. The combined lists of 
Schaeffer and Snow comprise 24 Bruchidae from Brownsville, Texas, 
while Schaeffer records 15 species of this family from the Huachuca 
Mountains of Arizona. In neither locality is there any pronounced 
poverty of Chrysomelidae, however, so that the relative development 
of the two families is totally different from that seen at Florissant. It 
seems that the Bruchidae, like the Rhynchophora, were relatively more 
abundantly represented by specific forms than was the case with most 
of our modern families. 
Another striking discrepancy in specific representation is found in 
the Byrrhidae. Eight species are recognized from Florissant, all of 
good size and none belonging to the Limnichini. If we exclude Lim- 
nichus from consideration, none of the recent lists cited contains so 
many, though we may assume that the faunae of their respective 
regions are much better known than that of the ancient lake. 
From these considerations, we are justified in believing that the 
proportional development of the various coleopterous families during 
the Miocene times differed, sometimes very decidedly, from that ob- 
taming today. Consequently we should be conservative in using 
data derived from comparison of these lists with recent ones as bases 
of conclusions as to probable climatic conditions. 
Regarding the citation of catalogue numbers, I have followed Dr. 
Seudder’s plan of joining by “and” those which belong to a single 
individual with its counterpart. The drawings of the new species 
are all made by myself with a camera lucida and are intended to show 
_ the form, the outlines of the principal sclerites and the courses of the 
chief lines of sculpture. Restoration has been avoided. In a few 
_ cases, where the members of different sides were unlike through dis- 
| 
| 
tortion both have been drawn in enlarged detail without special com- 
ment. 
