88 MALACODERMATA. 
second specimen, which is much more obscure in colour, but which I believe is, with- 
out doubt, a male of the same species, is clearly congeneric with the preceding 
insects. 
This specimen has lost its pubescence; and the elytra are subcoriaceous, smooth at 
the base, opaque at the apex; they widen gradually from the base. The thorax is 
smooth, its margins not much reflexed; near the hind angles (which are acute) are two 
shallow fovee. In the female the sides narrow towards the front. The head is blackish 
on the crown; the mandibles and mouth are blackish; the palpi, antenna, legs, and 
body entirely black. 
23. Discodon flaccidum. 
Obscure piceum; prothorace sordide rufo vel flavo; elytrorum marginibus suturaque et pedibus sordide 
testaceis; capite, antennis tarsisque nigris. Long. 6—7 millim. 
Hab. GuatEMALa, Chiacam, Cubilguitz, Teleman (Champion). 
The soft integuments, parallel elytra with pale margins, pale legs and rufous or 
pale horn-coloured thorax with pitchy disk, give this species quite the appearance of a 
small Lampyrid of the genus Photinus or Photuris, e. g. Photuris mollis, to small speci- 
mens of which it assimilates in size. The sides of the thorax are minutely indented. 
I am not able at present to indicate the male characters with certainty; but I have 
little doubt the specimens with narrower thoraces and with the sides more acutely 
notched are males. The antenne do not exceed half the body’s length. The elytra are 
finely and sparingly pubescent. 
Seven specimens are all I have seen. 
Obs. The claw described as the internal one of the front tarsi, is really so only 
when the leg is directed forwards; it is homologous with that which is the external 
one of the middle and hind feet. 
TELEPHORUS. 
Telephorus, Schiffer, Element. Ent. t. 123 (1766) ; Olivier, Ent. ii. 26; Degeer, Ins. iv. 60. 
Cantharis, Linn. Syst. Nat. 11. p. 647; Fab. Ent. Syst. 1. p. 216. 
It would not be within the scope of this work to enter upon a discussion of the 
involved synonymy, or of the many subdivisions which have been attempted of the 
genus Telephorus. 
Kirsch has described six species of Telephorus from Bogota, which are clearly 
congeneric with the above (Berl. ent. Zeits. 1865, p. 80 &c.). 
The genus is here adopted as it is now generally received in modern works on 
European species. I should retain Rhagonycha, Eschsch., as a good natural division ; 
but I have not at present found a Central-American representative of this form, 
although, as there are fourteen species in Mr. Crotch’s list of the Coleoptera of 
