LISSONOTUS.—MEGADERUS. 91 
Hab. Mexico 1, Cordova (Hége) ; Guatema.a, San Gerénimo (Champion) ; Nicaraaua, 
Chontales (Belt). 
The Nicaraguan specimens belong to the Mexican form rather than to the Colombian 
(flavocinctus, Dupont), between which I fail to detect any other constant difference than 
the punctuation, L. multifasciatus being rather more thickly and strongly punctured 
than L. flavocinctus. . | 
. MEGADERUS. 
Megaderus, Serville, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1834, p. 57. 
Three species are known—one from Tropical South America and two from Central 
America and Texas. 
1. Megaderus bifasciatus. 
Megaderus bifasciatus, Dupont, Mag. Zool. 1836, Monogr. des Trachyd. p. 5, t. 141. f. 24. 
Megaderus corallifer, Newman, Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, iv. p. 195 (1849). 
Hab. Norra America, Texas.—MeExico}, 
2. Megaderus latifasciatus. (Tab. VI. fig. 9.) 
Megaderus latifasciatus, Bates, Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 438 '. 
Hab. Nicaracva, Chontales (Belt, Janson 1). 
Fam. LAMIIDA, 
The family Lamiide is not susceptible of division into subfamilies having any 
approximation towards equality of rank with those I have proposed for the Prionide 
and the Cerambycide. As the genera and species, however, are exceedingly numerous 
and range themselves for the most part around certain tolerably definite type forms, 
of lower rank than the subfamilies just alluded to, I here adopt a system of “groups ” 
as a convenient arrangement for bringing together these evidently natural assemblages. 
The groups will be an amplification of the “subtribes” which I proposed and defined 
in treating of the Lamiade of the Amazons valley (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, viii. 
July 1861), and not equivalent to the “groupes” of Lacordaire’s ‘Genera des Coléo- 
ptéres,’ although, for facility of reference, I follow the order of succession established 
in the ‘ Genera.’ 
Group DORCADIONINI. 
There seems to me no valid distinction between the two “groupes” Dorcadidides and 
Parménides of Lacordaire. Of the two characters mentioned by him, the first (the 
form of the intercoxal projection of the basal ventral segment) is inconstant; and the 
second (the oblique outer groove of the middle tibia) rests on mistaken observation, at 
n 2 
