for the correction. I am glad when people like yourself take the time to make corrections. I do my best as do most folks on this site. The identifying features are good to note.

Scott -

You were probably closer in the first place than I was. I know C. brunnea and C. suilla, but looking at the specimens I have, this collection is neither. In C. suilla, the costae are very narrow and regularly spaced with wide double rows of punctures, whereas in C. brunnea, the punctures and costae are evenly distributed. The pictured specimens are clearly what was once called C. brunnea floridiana, which Blake (1974) elevated to C. floridiana.

Her remarks:

"It largely takes the place of brunnea in South Carolina, Gerogia, and Florida, although" the two types over lap. "The real difference is in the costation of the elytra, which in floridiana have the first two costae wider and separated by a single row of punctures." Single rows are also found in the "sixth and seventh rows in the basal part and there is only a single row in the eigth." "the elytral punctures are darker than the costae, producing a striped effect that is noticeable." Your specimen to a "T."

I think Scott nailed it with Colaspis floridiana. My first thought was C. brunnea for the typical 7 stripes instead of 4 in suilla and others. Weather floridiana is a subspecies or species remains doubtfull in my opinion. I think it will prove to be just a subspecies of brunnea one day, but for the moment we should follow the latest worker on the genus which is Blake...
Can the speciespage be changed from suilla to floridiana?

based on the comments here.

I agree with the C. floridana ID.