MR. CURTIS ON HYPOCEPHALUS, A GENUS OF COLEOPTERA. 



229 



for a single proof of affinity must be preferred before an assemblage of analogies. This 

 leads me to question the views of my friend Professor Burmeister, regarding the relation- 

 ship of Hypocephalus with the Frionidce, for after a careful investigation I am constrained 

 to believe, that the former genus is more related to the Lamellicomes, and for the 

 following reasons, which I will give in a tabular form, the better to contrast the claims of 

 Hypocephalus to be associated with either of those Families. 



The Lamellicornes 



are Pentamerous. 



Mouth with 4 Palpi, quadri- and tri-articulate. 

 Mandibles often corneous. 



Antennae short, capitate, or clavate, often with 

 many moniliform joints. 



Eyes small, round or oval. 



Elytra horny or coriaceous. 



Legs, hinder not unfrequently incrassated. 



Tibiae thick, dilated, 4 anterior emarginate ex- 

 ternally, forming teeth or lobes ; apex with mi- 

 nute spurs. 



Tarsi simple; anterior short and a little dilated. 

 All five-jointed. 



The Longicobnes 



are Tetramerous. 



Mouth with 4 Palpi, quadri- and tri-articulate. 

 Mandibles always corneous. 



Antennae elongated, not moniliform. 



Eyes emarginate. 



Elytra horny or coriaceous. 



Legs, hinder not incrassated. 



Tibiae dilated, generally compressed, not emargi- 

 nate externally. 



Tarsi, penultimate joint generally bilobed, some- 

 times with a head, or false joint at the base of 

 the terminal one. All four-jointed. 



After this simple comparison, let us take a more general view of the character. In no 

 family of beetles is the thorax so fully developed as in the Scarabceidce, and the legs are 

 almost universally robust. In Melolonthida, as indeed in all the Lamellicomes, the tibiae 

 are more or less lobed or toothed outside*. In Chrysophora and Pelidnota, in Pipsinus, 

 Dichelus and Pachy enema we find the hinder legs very much larger than the other four ; 

 the thighs are very much incrassated, the tibiae often curved and toothed, whilst the 

 genus Hexodon proves what extraordinary departures there are from the typical forms. 

 When we arrive at the Lucanidce we find a description of mandibles that singularly 

 accords with Hypocephalus, especially in Pholidotus and Orthognathus, whilst the eyes 

 are small, remote, and placed behind the antennae. The labrum and labium are generally 

 invisible after death, and the maxillary lobes are very small, whilst the palpi are well 

 developed, as in Platycerus, the typical Lucanidce, &c. 



Let us now turn to the apparent likeness between Hypocephalus and the Longicorns. 

 In approaching that Family we find Passandra, which bears some resemblance to Hypo- 

 cephalus in the form of the head and antennae, and in the position of the eyes, but the 

 legs are remarkably small ; Passandra however is considered to form one of the links to 

 Parandra (which may be termed a tetramerous Lucanus), and making an approach to 

 Hypocephalus, but the characters of the mouth, eyes, and tarsi, will not support any 

 claims to affinityf. Next comes Spondylis, which in the form of the antennae and the 

 proportions of the palpi, agrees with Hypocephalus, but the mentum is not trilobed, the 



* Vide Copris, Curt. Brit. Ent. pi. 414; Geotrupes, pi. 266, Aphodius, pi. 27, also Melolontha, Cetonia, and 

 Lucanus. • 



f I may add that I consider Trictenotoma a Heteromerous Lucaniform beetle, not a Longicorn. 



