Mr. T. V. Wollaston on a new genus of European Coleoptera. 339 



Be this, however, as it may, it will be sufficient to state that 

 the present insect differs, in its structural details, from Colotes 

 (judging from the diagnosis of that genus as given in the ' En- 

 tomographien'), first and foremost, in the immense development 

 of the maxillary palpi of the males. Thus, whilst in Colotes 

 the first and third joints are (according to Erichson) small, in 

 Antidipnis the first only is small, the third being in the male 

 sex enormous, and even in the female scarcely shorter than the 

 second. Then, the fourth (according to the same author) is, in 

 both sexes, strongly hatchet-shaped, whereas in the present 

 genus it is securiform in neither, being in the males immensely 

 enlarged (like the penultimate one) and subquadrate (with the 

 apex spongiose), and in the females not much thicker than the 

 one before it, but elongated and strictly fusiform. Moreover, 

 the very great difference in the entire length of the maxillary 

 palpi in the two sexes (they being twice as long in the males as 

 they are in the females) should be especially noticed. These 

 wonderful sexual differences of the palpi (so anomalous in the 

 Melyrida) will be more than sufficient, even of themselves, to 

 establish Antidipnis as a new and interesting genus ; nevertheless 

 minor characters, likewise, are not wanting. Thus, the basal 

 joint of its antenna? is apparently less thickened, and the second 

 one shorter, than is the case in Colotes. In Colotes, too, Erichson 

 states that the first and second joints of the feet are of equal 

 length, whereas in Antidipnis the basal one (in both sexes, and 

 in all the feet) is longer than the second. 



Although the specific characters have been accurately described 

 by M. Duval, I subjoin the following diagnosis, as it is just 

 within the range of possibility that M. Dert's insect may, after 

 all, have been wrongly identified, and that so his species and 

 mine (which are certainly the same) may be new. In that case, 

 I would propose for it the trivial name of palpalis ; but, as 

 already stated, I regard such a contingency as most improbable. 

 I would therefore record it thus : — 



Antidipnis rubripes. 



Ebceus rubripes, Perris, ined. 



Colotes rubripes, Jacq.-Duv., Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France (2^ me serie), 

 x. 707 (1852). 



A. piceo-niger nitidulus, ore, antennis pedibusque rufo-testaceis ; 

 capite prothoraceque minute (oculo armato) punctulatis et densis- 

 sime subtilissimeque alutaceis ; elytris densius et rugose punctatis 

 et pube depressa albida parce irroratis. Long. corp. lin. |-1. 



Habitat in stercore arido humano, a meipso prope urbem Ulyssip- 

 ponensem, mense Julio a.d. 1858, sat copiose repertus. 



