APOLOPHA.—PLATYNOPTERA.—PYTICERA, 183 
punctuation is much more distinct upon its disk; also on each side there is only a very 
faint impression, the sides are slightly sinuate, the front angles acute, the posterior 
rounded off. ‘The elytra are unicolorous. The antenne are proportionally longer. 
Two specimens are all I have found among the numerous Cleride collected by 
Champion at Bugaba. 
PLATYNOPTERA., 
Platynoptera, Chevrolat, in Silb. Rev. Ent. ii. no. 18 (1884). 
Of this remarkable genus eight species have been described, all from Tropical 
America. ‘They present the best-known and perhaps the most perfect instance of 
mimicry between themselves and the Lycide. 
1. Platynoptera duponti. 
Platynoptera duponti, Spin. Mon. ii. p. 64°, t. 41. f. 4. 
Hab. Mexico}. 
I have never seen this insect. From the plate in Spinola’s Atlas, it would seem 
not to be unlike the Pyticera of the same name, but to have the full complement of 
eleven joints to the antenne, and to have the apical joint more excavated. 
2. Platynoptera mexicana. (Tab. IX. fig. 11.) 
Platynoptera mexicana, Thoms. Mus. Scient. 1860, p. 65°. 
Hab. Mexico1, Paso del Macho (2098); Mirador (Sallé) ; Guatemaa, Cubulco, Vera 
Paz (Champion). 
The species of Platynoptera would all seem to be rare, but are perhaps only so in 
collections, owing to the protection their resemblance to some common species of Lycus 
would give them; for it is quite sufficient to deceive even a good naturalist. The 
resemblance is more general than specific. The present species varies in the amount 
of blue at the base of the elytra, some examples having scarcely any trace of the dark 
basal patch, in which case they imitate the variety of Calopteron bifasciatum (cf. Tab. I. 
fig. 12). Hége met with a number of specimens at Paso del Macho. 
PYTICERA. 
Pyticera, Spinola, Mon. ii. p. 69; Gorh. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1877, p. 416. 
Platynoptera (pars), Lac. Gen. Col. iv. p. 478. 
The name Pyticera was applied by M. Dupont to the type of the genus Ichnea, viz. 
I. lycoides. It is not, therefore, strictly appropriate here. There is again, also, as is 
the case in Apolopha, a discrepancy between the number of joints assigned to the 
antenne in the printed description, viz. nine, and the number shown in the figure of 
the same species, where it is ten. ‘The fact appears to me to be that the figure is 
correct. In addition to Spinola’s species, I have described two species found by 
