122 KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



The next question is : To which of the two species did the type 

 belong? P'rom Wiedemann's description, it seems that the antennae 

 of the type were wanting when he saw it, as well as the abdomen. 

 There is absolutely nothing in Fabricius' description that will furnish 

 an answer, and it is doubtful whether the mutilated type, were it in 

 existence, would relieve the doubt. Wiedemann's opinion was, that 

 the specimen was possibly a "male," i. e. of the same species as, or 

 one allied to, bianmtlata; but that is an assumption, and the descrip- 

 tion of the thorax applies much better to negkcta. 



Under these circumstances I see no way but to abandon Fabricius' 

 name, at least till there is more evidence, and accept the two names, 

 biannulata and ueglecta, as of species probably occurring in both 

 North and South America. 



It was no wonder that Wiedemann made the mistake that he did in 

 the absence of real male specimens, so different are the oviducts in 

 the two otherwise closely related species. In addition to the peculiar 

 termination which Wiedemann describes, the oviduct in my Brazilian 

 female is much more conical, stouter, shorter, and more posteriorly 

 directed than in the female of ueglecta. It is composed of three seg- 

 ments, as in negJ.ecta, but the first and third segments are, together, 

 somewhat longer than the second, whereas, in ueglecta, they are 

 exceedingly short, and the second segment is extraordinarily elon- 

 gated. The peculiar processes at the tip, mentioned by Wiedemann, 

 are also present in ueglecta, but are very small, and easily overlooked, 

 whereas in the South American female they are conspicuous. The 

 male has no elongation whatever at the end of the abdomen. 



