American Caraboidea 239 



like those of pimalis and tuckeri, a.nd in the black antennae; pimalis 

 seems to be alHed to the Mexican Loxopeza exarata of Bates and 

 melanocephala Chd,; tuckeri and pimalis are smaller than pleuritica; 

 they are mutually widely distinct species and are probably equally 

 distinct from pleuritica, which I have not seen; tuckeri must how- 

 ever resemble arizonica Schf., from the Huachuca Mts., very 

 closely, but in tuckeri there are only some extremely minute punc- 

 tules toward the sides of the head, the pronotum is widely reflexed 

 at the sides, the elytral intervals rather conspicuously convex and 

 not flat as in arizonica, and the abdomen is impunctate; the fourth 

 hind tarsal joint is feebly emarginate. 



Lebia Latr. 

 General habitus of the body, as I have had occasion to refer to 

 in the case of the Pterostichinae and Amarinae, when considered in a 

 broadly discriminative way, is the most important single structural 

 character which can be adopted as a criterion of classification in 

 large groups, deficient in striking structural modifications of special 

 organs. In fact many differences in special organs, which have 

 generally served as bases of classification, must be regarded as 

 indecisive in the presence of an identical general habitus, and it is 

 for this reason that I believe Loxopeza should include, besides the 

 typical forms, species of the pleuritica type, having apparently 

 purely Lebiid tarsi. Coming to Lebia itself, it is quite evident 

 that, as comprehended in our lists, there are two types of general 

 facies and two only; that is those with a prothorax transverse and 

 well reflexed at the sides, recalling Loxopeza though more abbrevi- 

 ated, and those with a more convex, more basally narrowed and 

 laterally only very narrowly reflexed prothorax, as observable in 

 Dianchomena ahdominalis; in Aphelogenia the facies is exactly as 

 in typical Lebia, excepting a somewhat different type of elytral 

 ornamentation, and even this is inconstant, as seen in Aphelogenia 

 guttula, when compared with the vittate species. Dianchomena 

 miranda, which diff"er very much in ornamentation from D. ah- 

 dominalis, which I regard as the type of Dianchomena, I have not 

 been able to study, and it is probable that it should not really 

 form part of the genus Dianchomena; scapularis, which was placed 

 in the latter genus by Horn, is a typical Lebia in its entire physi- 



