15 



HENTZ TO HARRIS. 



Northampton, April 23, 1826. 



I thank you for the information about Ipsfaseiata; it is not 

 the first error detected in Fabricius. 



My doubts about Cetonia harhata are removed ; I knew that 

 Olivier had described it, and that you could inform me of the 

 truth. I have examined the insect which I had called Triehius 

 vulpinus too hastily, and though I have not dissected it, having 

 but one specimen, I am convinced that it cannot belong to the 

 genus TricMus since the labrum is prominent, nor to Glaphy^ 

 rus of Latreille, as the club of the antenna has its lamellse dis- 

 engaged. It belongs, therefore, to Amj^hicoma, as you thought, 

 if on dissecting it we find it to have corneous mandibles. The 

 characters of Anisonyx do not agree with it, 'the labrum being 

 very prominent. Hoplia trifasciata I have called Melolontha 

 variabilis Fabr. or Hoplia variabilis^ as it certainly belongs to 

 that subgenus if adopted. That insect agrees with the phrase of 

 Fabricius, varietas americana tomento aureo tecta^ and the name 

 variabilis also agrees with it, as you hardly ever find two speci- 

 mens with the same colors or markings ; it varies fi'om piceous 

 or black to bright testaceous or rufous. The fasciae are quite 

 obsolete or wanting in some, and very distinct in others. I 

 may be mistaken, but your remarks will solve my doubts. 

 I have three specimens, of which one is still at your service. 

 How is it that the Melolontha polyphaga of Melsheimer, which 

 forms the type of your subgenus Stenothorax, is called sub- 

 spinosa by Fabr., and angustata by Beauv. ? Has the name 

 been changed, or was Melsheimer mistaken ? 



Your subgenus Stilboptera seems strongly marked and useful 

 in a genus which has still so many species. Of the subgenus 

 Dichelonyx I cannot judge, not having the insect with which 

 you form its type. Your subgenus vii, without a name affixed, 

 having the M. lanigera for its type, is also strongly marked ; 



