Platynin.e 69 



probable, however, that the solution of the question here proposed 

 comes as close to the truth as is possible at present. That species 

 of the Atlantic coastal regions which resembles extensicoUis and is 

 generally mistaken for it, I believe to be the one described by Dejean 

 under the name elongatulus, with synonymy as suggested above, 

 ihoracicus being founded upon a somewhat immature individual 

 and really identical with elongatulus; both it and proximus Harr., 

 which seems to be of the same species, were published in 1828. 

 Elongatulus varies greatly in coloration, some specimens being 

 bright green throughout, while in others the elytra become metallic 

 seneo-cupreous. ExtensicoUis Say, does not seem to occur east of 

 the Appalachians; it is narrower, longer and less shining than its 

 eastern analogue elongatulus, and never has the integuments so 

 shining or metallic as they are in the latter. The Arizona species 

 identified as cyanescens Mots., agrees perfectly with the original 

 description, founded upon a Lorquin specimen, many of which 

 probably came from the Sonoran parts of California. 



LeConte states that in anchomenoides the sides of the prothorax 

 are not reflexed, but in this and allied species they are diaphanously 

 pale as stated by that author and, as a corollary of this, unusually 

 reflexed for this subgenus of Anchomenus. The remarks made by 

 LeConte (Proc. Ac. Phila., 1854, p. 47) would seem to indicate, 

 however, that several distinct species were confused under the 

 name anchomenoides by that author. In Bull. Bk. 1879, p. 51, 

 the author discusses the probability that californicus, floridanus 

 and texanus may be slight modifications of a single species; this 

 is incorrect however, so far as texanus and californicus are con- 

 cerned, though floridanus may prove to be a subspecies of texanus; 

 the surmise of the author made further on, that crenistriatus, 

 ruhripes and punctiformis may be similarly related to each other 

 is also ill-considered. The form arenarius, described above, prob- 

 ably has full specific value, because of antennal structure and 

 coloration among other reasons, but since it is closely allied to 

 decorus, I give it the status of a subspecies of the latter provisionally, 

 as it is represented solely by a unique, so far as known at present. 



I have maintained the name marginellus Lee, rather than bicolor 

 Dej., with which it was united by LeConte. In bicolor the antennal 

 joints after the first have their tips more obscure in color. The 



