31 



Zeit. XXXI, 1887, p. 48) doubtless has some good reason (sucli as the ex- 

 amination of original types) for identifying ohtectus Say as irresectus 

 Fahrajus. But we can not see that he has any good reason for giving it 

 precedence in time over Say's name. On the contrary, chronologically, 

 the synonymy of the species would in our judgment stand thus: 



1831 — Bruchus obtectns Say. 



1833 — Bruchus leguminarius CClievrolat) Gyll. 



1839 — Bruchus irresectus (Schonherr) Fahraius. 



1839 — Bruchus pallidipes (ChevroLit) FahriBus. 



1854 — Bruchus subellipticus Wollastou. 



1861— Bruchus faba) Fitch. 



1867— Bruchus breweri Crotch. 



1871— Bruchus faba3 Riley. 



1873 — Bruchus obsoletus (Say) Horn. 



1889 — Bruchus subarmatus Janson ( ?=:subarmatus Gyll.). 



Bruchus varicornis Lee. is a manuscript name; B. ohscurus (Say) Fitchi 

 is a lapsus calami for ohsoletus Say; vihile B. acupunctus Ohevr. appears 

 to be a mere label or manuscript name, Baudi {I. c, p. 49) indicates that 

 irresectus is labeled in the Turin Eoyal Museum as [Mylabris) acupuncta 

 Chevr. from Louisiana, and that a second specimen is also labeled {M.) 

 leguminaria Chevr., this last probably sent by Ohevrolat himself. Thus, 

 aside from the fact that the description of leguminarius tallies very well 

 with our Bean Weevil, we have this identification by Baudi. 



To sum up the question of nomenclature, our Bean Weevil, on the strict 

 law of priority, must be known as Bruchus ohtectus Say until someone 

 shall resurrect some hitherto unrecognized and earlier published name 

 that can be proved to refer to it. 



It is a widely distributed species, according to the authorities, hav- 

 ing been reported from Central and South America, Madeira, Canaries, 

 Mediterranean countries, the Alps, western France, Spain, Persia, etc. 

 It is doubtless cosmopolitan, like so many species carried by commerce 

 in stored products, and its wide distribution and the early European 

 references to it really make it questionable whether it is to be con- 

 sidered any longer as a native American species. This question ac- 

 quires an additional interest from the consideration that if it were once 

 determined not to be an indigene it is improbable that Say would have 

 found it on any wild leguminous plant. 



OVIPOSITION IN THE FIELD. 



Notwithstanding the wide distribution of the species it is only dur- 

 ing the present year that its habits in the field have been in any way 

 carefully studied. It is not necessary in this connection to repeat any- 

 thing in reference to the oviposition of the species in stored beans, as 

 we have fiilly described the method and the eggs on page 300 of vol. iv, 

 Insect Life. We realized, however, that more carefal observations 

 were needed as to the habits of the species in the field, as we have for 



