1946 ] MylabridcE 37 
ignated Brnchus coryphae Oliv. genotype of the synonymous or 
possibly subgeneric group Pachybruchus Pic, and has also trans- 
ferred to Megacerus B. discoideus Say, B. impiger Horn, and 
B. crenatus Schf.( nec Thunberg) the name of which he has 
changed to schaefferianus Bridw. Since all of these facts, in- 
cluding the recording of Megacerus as a North American genus 
have escaped the attention of the compilers of the supplements 
to Leng’s Catalogue, they are here repeated. 
Megacerus Fahreus 1839 is not entered either in Neave’s 
Nomenclator zoologicus or in the Nomenclator animalium gen- 
erum et subgenerum of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 
Berlin. 
Megacerus arenarius (Wole.) new comb. — I have seen no 
specimen of Bruchus arenarius Wolcott, but since it was de- 
scribed as a member of Horn’s group IV, to which the species 
of Megacerus belong, it also may be transferred to that genus, 
pending a fuller knowledge of the species. This action is justi- 
fied by the fact that it certainly is not a Bruchus, that some 
disposition should be made of it, and that it in all probability 
is a Megacerus. 
Bruchidius Schilsky 
The status of this genus has been discussed by Bridwell, 1899, 
p 41. Reopening the question in 1946, p. 53, he finds it “ad- 
visable” to establish a tribe Bruchidiini for the Old World 
genera and another, Acanthoscelidini for the Nearctic and Neo- 
tropical genera. However he considers it “premature to attempt 
a diagnosis” of these tribes. He states that aedeagal distinctions 
exist, but not what they are. The present writer hopes to be 
pardoned if he finds it a somewhat unscientific procedure to 
erect taxonomic groups until one is prepared to differentiate 
them, and present the evidence for believing them distinct, in 
order that others may examine and evaluate it. To him it is 
premature to recognize, or for their sponsor to have proposed 
the tribes. 
The matter is not without zoogeographical importance for it 
our Nearctic Bruchidius (for which at least in part Bridwell has 
erected the genus Sennius) are not offshoots of the European 
group, but come from a different stock, then the matter is of 
considerable interest. Nevertheless it remains to be proven. 
An adequate differentiation between Bruchidius and Acan- 
