J 24 Coleopterological Notices, III. 



Our single species is as follows: — 



T. cordatus Champ.— Biol. Cent.-Amer., Coleopt., IV, Pt. i, Nov. 1888, 



p. 451. — Oblong, rather depressed, polished and pale ochreous-testaceous 

 throughout ; pubescence rather short, semi-erect, coarse and sparse. Head 

 feebly convex, rather strongly, not very densely punctate; eyes small, -sepa- 

 rated by nearly one-half more than their own width ; antennae slender, fili- 

 form, nearly one-half as long as the body, intermediate joints feebly obconical, 

 about twice as long as wide, the third and fourth equal. Prothorax one-half 

 wider than long, the apex transversely truncate, four-fifths as wide as the 

 base, the latter transverse or just visibly, evenly arcuate throughout, the 

 sinuations obsolete ; sides broadly arcuate, convergent in basal third and he- 

 coming strongly sinuate just before the basal angles, the latter right, some- 

 what prominent, not at all blunt ; disk evenly convex, not impressed, rather 

 coarsely and sparsely punctate ; basal fovea? broadly impressed and almost 

 obsolete. Elytra about three times as long as the prothorax and one-fourth 

 wider than the disk of the latter, abruptly, acutely ogival at apex ; sides 

 parallel and nearly straight ; humeri narrowly rounded and quite broadly 

 exposed at base ; disk with extremely feebly impressed series of rather coarse 

 deep punctures, which become much less distinct near the apex : intervals 

 fiat, finely, confusedly and very sparsely punctate. Abdomen finely but dis- 

 tinctly, sparsely punctate. Legs rather short, slender, the basal joint of the 

 hind tarsi nearly as long as the remainder. Length 5.5-5.8 mm.; width 

 2,0-2.1 mm. 



Texas (El Paso). Mr. Dunn. 



There seems to be very little sexual difference, the eyes being just 

 visibly less distant in the male, and the fifth segment a little more 

 acutely rounded behind in that sex. 



MICETOCHARA 1 Berth. 



Several attempts have been made to subdivide this genus but all 

 more or less unsuccessfully, for, although easily divisible into groups 

 by certain comparatively constant prosternal characters, it is found 

 that each group contains species which, in general habitus, are 

 strongly suggestive of homologous species in some of the others. 



1 The correct designation of this genus is involved in considerable uncer- 

 tainty, and for this reason I at first determined to make use of the name given 

 in the Munich Catalogue, quite forgetting the familiar fact that Mycetophila 

 had been used by Meigen in 1803 for a genus of Diptera. The word here 

 adopted is that proposed by Seidlitz in the most recent edition of the " Fauna 

 Baltica," and is considered by that author to be two years earlier than Myce- 

 tochares Latr., the former having been printed in 1827, while the latter was 

 not published in a properly latinized form until 1829. 



