Goleopterological Notices, VII. 385 



the least wider, similar to the ninth but a little shorter, }^ wider than long; 

 eleventh barely as wide and distinctly shorter than the two preceding, grad- 

 ually narrowed in a slender and very acute ogive, which is not oblique. Pro- 

 thorax subquadrate, about as long as wide, parallel and scarcely narrowed at 

 base, not distinctly arcuate laterally, but feebly and arcuately narrowed near 

 the apex, fully 34 wider than the head; subbasal impression strong, the fovese 

 feeble ; carinse distinct. Elytra % longer than wide, scarcely more than twice 

 s& long as the prothorax and nearly % wider; sides evenly, strongly arcuate 

 throughout the length; humeral plica wide and convex, the subhumeral im- 

 pression long, rather narrow and very deep; foveas deep and approximate; sub- 

 sutural impressions obsolete, the suture very finely beaded basally, the bead 

 minutely, triangularly expanded at base. Legs slender, the four posterior 

 femora feebly, the two anterior more strongly, clavate. Length 0.95 mm.; 

 width 0.4 mm. 



North Carolina. Mr. Schmitt. 



This species, though evidently allied closely to fatuus, differs 

 obviously in its much stouter antennal club, the latter differing 

 further from any other of this section, in being much paler, in- 

 stead of darker, than the remainder. Sexual characters are not 

 observable, but in the type the anterior tibiae are turned inward 

 slightly at tip. 



In the type specimen the right el3'^tron is removed, and, by 

 lateral sight, the inner edge of the left is observed to have a ver- 

 tical inner keel under the subbasal bead, and immediately behind 

 this a grooved and rather complex locking fold of the edge. The 

 dorsal pygidium covered by the elytra is very large, strongly con- 

 vex and is feebly punctulate and sparsely pubescent toward tip. 



Besides the above forms which are deemed worthy of descrip- 

 tion, there is before me another example, from Florida, which 

 seems to represent a distinct species, but as it appears to be 

 immature and is closely allied to some others, it is best not to 

 name it at present. Indeed all of these six forms of Psomophus 

 might readily be regarded as strongly marked geographical sub- 

 species of one type, but the structural differences are so radical 

 ^nd obvious, that it becomes a matter of necessity to name them, 

 in order that they may be subsequently referred to. 



PYCWOPHUS n. gen. 



The species described by LeConte under the name Scydmsenus 

 rasus, presents numerous structural peculiarities which declare 

 its isolation from every other known type of the Euconnini. In 



