472 Coleopterological Notices, V. 



On comparing the male of luculentus with that of the typical 

 spretus in the LeOonte cabinet from northern Georgia, I find that 

 the two are wholly dissimilar in the frontal modification, as may be 

 seen from the following statement : — 



Upper surface of the head flat, produced in the same plane beyond the 

 antennae in a short broad trapezoid, the apex transversely and evenly 

 truncate and one-half as wide as the interantennal distance ; clypeus below 

 the trapezoid with a dorsal setose tubercle which extends upward nearly to 

 the level of the frontal margin but distinctly in advance of it ; basal joint 

 of the antennae compressed beneath, the lower outline broadly arcuate and 

 the under surface strongly asperate spretllS 



Front declivous, broadly truncate and biimpressed between the antennae, 

 bearing at the middle of the beveled edge two approximate suberect and 

 tuberculiforni teeth ; clypeus beneath with a dorsal tubercle as usual ; basal 

 joint of the antennae broadly arcuate beneath and coarsely but simply punc- 

 tate luculeutus 



Spretus is one of the most minute species of the genus, appre- 

 ciably smaller than luculentus. It is probably quite local in 

 habitat. 



The species described by me as cephaloles is identical with stri- 

 atvs Lee, which was long ago very carelessly suppressed as a syno- 

 nym of globosus; it has scarcely anything in common with globosus, 

 and possesses radically different frontal characters in the male. Sim- 

 plex Lee. and aterrimus Csy. are both founded upon the female of 

 this species, the types of simplex being two very immature females. 

 Striatus may be readily known by its large head in the male, with 

 the antennal joints two to four uniformly decreasing and with the 

 basal joint not modified beneath, and also by the small pubescent 

 vertexal fovese. 



ARTHAIIUS LeConte. 



There can be no doubt of the validity of this genus, and its sepa- 

 ration from Batrisus is a necessity in any natural scheme of classi- 

 fication. Arthmius differs from Batrisus in the complete absence 

 of an impressed line and post-humeral fovea on the flanks of the 

 elytra, and in having a radically different arrangement of the im- 

 pressions and carinas at the base of the abdomen ; these characters 

 alone would demand generic isolation, but, in addition, the form of 

 the body is shorter and stouter — somewhat reminding us of Bry- 

 axis as noted by LeConte, — the head entirely without trace of any 



