Recently while studying a small collection of Histeridae and Melyridae submitted to me by Mr. Ralph Hopping of the Canadian Entomological Branch, I discovered the interesting new species described below. With Col. Casey's excellent paper on the Melyridae (Coleopterological Notices VI, p. 456) at hand it becomes an easy matter to gain an understanding of the several genera. The species of this family are abundant, as proved by the many new forms which are constantly coming to hand. Two of the new species represent new genera. In studying the melyrids a moderately strong glass, or preferably a binocular microscope, should be used. It really requires much intensive study to fully appreciate and properly correlate the slight but valid characters presented by the members of this moderately large and homogeneous family.

The writer is at present engaged in a study of the Aphidae of Sorth America commonly included in the genus Chermes. During this study what is evidently a new species appeared and is herewith described as the first contribution to this study The author would be interested in seeing member of this genus from any part of North America.

The well known name Chermes is retained in describing this species, although it is evident that it is no longer available for the Aphidae, until such a time as the literature is available and the correct name for the genus call be determined.

Through the courtesy of Dr. S. Forbes I have recently had the opportunity of working over the Ephemerid material contained in the collection of the Illinois State Natural History Survey at Urbana, Ill. In this connection I offer the following descriptions of species which appear to be undescribed, as well as a note on a Mexican species, the identity of which has been doubtful.

The generic name Bolbocerosoma was proposed by Mr. Schæffer in 1906 (Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., XXII, pp. 250-254) to take care of the species Scarabaeus forcuts Fabricius and its supposed synonym tumefactus Beauvois. Oddly enough, the misgivings of M. Beauvois. recorded more than a century ago, that his species was “perhaps only a climatic variation” have been shared by all subsequent writers, and three additional forms have, doubtless, on this account failed to receive recognition. After carefully studying between two and three hundred specimens, the writers cannot concur in the opinion of Mr. Schæffer that “intermediates” occur, and that, therefore, the differential characters are unstable and valueless. It is true that an occasional specimen will deviate somewhat from the average color pattern of its species, but such specimens can in every instance be readily determined by the examination of the constant structural and genital characters diagnostic of the species.

Among the Ephemeridae which the senior author reared at Ithaca, N.Y., from 1913-1915, were two very common species of the genus Heptagenia. The nymphs of both of these species are described by Needham in Bulletin 86. N. Y. State Museum, and figured in plate 9. Extensive rearings, about 50 in all, show, however, that the nymph described as Heptagenia sp. 3 and illustrated in Fig. 4 of plate 9, is that of Heptagenia interpunctata, while the nymph described for that species and illustrated in Fig. 3 of plate 9 appears to belong to a new species which we here describe.

In a brief note mentioning a few species of Lygaeus, Mr. Van Duzee suggests that I may have misidentified L., kalmii Stal in my paper on the distribution and forms of that species, but the basis for this notion remains obscure, since our senior hemipterist contents himself with a series of ex cathedra statements devoid of argument or documentation. He surmises quite correctly that I followed Stal in my identification of the species concerned-and why not? Stal's work is clear and, for aught we know to the contrary, perfectly sound. More-ever, in the most recent monograph of the genus, Barber reaches conclusions in harmony with Stal's fundamental treatment and my later elaboration. In Mr. Van Duzee's little note all this previous work is ignored and we are favored with a series of bare propositions. which, if they have a certain value as expressions of the author's revolutionary opinions, are nevertheless in conflict with the evidence, I believe, and hence to be rejected. Let us consider these propositions one by one.