
RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBFAMILY AGRYPNINAE 263 
paralectotypes are not conspecific with one another. The one labeled ‘sallei 3’ 
belongs to a species unknown to me. It is conspecific with two males from Brewster 
county, Texas in the CAS, San Francisco collection. The specimen marked ‘sallei 
4° differs from the lectotype in that the antennae do not attain the posterior angles 
of the prothorax, falling short of it by the length of more than one segment. In 
addition the lateral lobes of the aedeagus are stouter than those of the lectotype. 
The specimen is conspecific with the males of series from Falfurrias, Texas, Green 
[?Greer] Co., Oklahoma and Medora, Kansas. Further studies are required before 
it can be decided whether these specimens belong to a distinct species or whether 
they are a form of sallev. 
Additional material examined. U.S.A., Louisiana: New Orleans, 1 9 (BMNH). 
Florida: Dunedin, 2 ¢; Enterprise, 3 9; Hillsbro, 1 g, 1 9; Jacksonville, 1 9; Lake 
Placid, r g; Naples, 1 g; St. Augustine, xr g; Stuart, 1 g (CAS, San Francisco.) 
I have not seen any specimens of sallei from localities west of New Orleans. 
The specimen labelled ‘sallei 2’ (3, grey-green paper disk [?faded dark green = 
New Mexico, see p. 277] which is conspecific with specimens from Tucson believed 
to be arizonae Candéze), and ‘Sallei 5’ (g. Fla., correctly identified) standing 
with the syntypes in the LeConte collection (MCZ, Harvard) are obviously not 
part of the syntype series. 
Lanelater schotti (LeConte) 
Agrypnus schotti LeConte, 1853 : 492. 
Lanelater schotti (LeConte) Arnett, 1952 : 105. 
Holotype. U.S.A.: 9, dark red paper disk [Texas, see p. 277]; Type 2374 [MCZ 
curatorial label} (MCZ, Harvard). The published locality is Lower Rio Grande, 
the river which forms the boundary between Texas and Mexico. 
The LeConte collection (MCN, Harvard) also contains the following specimens: 
I Q, illegible locality, 25; schotti 2 [MCZ curatorial label]. 1 9, Ariz.; schotti 3 
[MCZ curatorial label]. These specimens, which are presumably those recorded 
by Arnett (1952: 106), differ from his description in that the antennal grooves 
do not have abrupt ends but become shallow at the base. In spite of the fact 
that these two specimens have a more robust appearance, I believe that they are 
conspecific with the holotype. 
Lanelater scortecci (Binaghi) comb. n. 
Agrypnus scortecci Binaghi, 1941a : 73; fig. 8. 
Lanelater scortecci (Binaghi) Arnett, 1952 : 105. 
Holotype and paratype. Lispya: Fezzan; Gat estate, 1934, light, G. Garganese 
(MCSN, Milan) and another paratype, same data in Binaghi collection. Not 
examined. 
Confirmation of Arnett’s generic attribution is based on the description. 
