PARACLIUS. 99 



end of the fourth longitudinal vein forms a curve, the concavity of 

 which is turned backwards, and which in this respect differ more 

 than the others from the species of Gymnopternus, approach them 

 very closely in the structure of the face, and are easily distinguished 

 on that account from the species of Pelastoneurus ; the structure 

 of their face would be indeed altogether like that of the species of 

 Gymnopternus, if the face was not somewhat less broad and more 

 narrowed below. The structure of their hypopygium also ap- 

 proaches more to that of the species of Gymnopternus, than to 

 Pelastoneurus, the hypopygium not being elongated and being 

 provided with a shorter peduncle, so as to appear sessile or almost 

 sessile. The outer appendages of all the species have more of the 

 usual form of a shell than those of the species of Pelastoneurus. 

 While there is a great uniformity with regard to all the above men- 

 tioned characters, this is not the case with the structure of the 

 antennae. In both species, which I describe below, the third joint 

 of the antennae is rounded and the arista more or less distinctly 

 hairy, but not feathered. In the species from Surinam, which I 

 have described in the Wiener Entomol. Monatschr. as Gymnop- 

 ternus leucospilus, the third joint of the antennae is longer, quite 

 distinctly excised on its upper side, and has, like the species of Pe- 

 lastoneurus, a distinctly feathered arista. Whether this difference 

 in the structure of the antennas is sufficient to form two genera of 

 these species, I am unable to decide, on account of the scanty ma- 

 terial at my disposal, but I rather incline to that opinion. Doli- 

 chopus heteropterus Macq. undoubtedly belongs to this group, but 

 whether it is more related to the two species described below, or 

 to G. leucospilus, cannot be decided without the comparison of the 

 specimen ; however, according to the statements and the drawing 

 which Mr. Macquart furnishes of the structure of the antennae, 

 the former seems to be the case. Mr. Bigot founded upon it a 

 separate genus, which he calls Paracleius, and distinguishes it 

 from the genus Gymnopternus by the latter having the third joint 

 of the male antennae slightly excised on the upper side, and the 

 fourth longitudinal vein bent, while in Paracleius the third joi-nt 

 of the male antennae is not excised on the upper side, and the 

 fourth longitudinal vein is strongly bent. My experience does 

 not, as yet, allow me to agree with this mode of subdivision ; I 

 therefore cannot adopt the genus Paracleius in the sense of Mr. 

 Bi^ot. Nevertheless, I see no inconvenience in retaining the 



