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 Prionide, for after a careful investigation I am constrained 
to believe, that the former genus is more related to the Lamellicornes, 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. 
Antenne short, capitate, or clavate, often with 
many moniliform joints. 
Eyes small, round or oval. 
. Elytra horny or coriaceous. 
Legs, hinder not unfrequently incrassated. 
Tibiz thick, dilated, 4 anterior emarginate ex- 
ternally, forming teeth or lobes; apex with mi- 
nute spurs. 
Tarsi simple; anterior short and a little dilated. 
The LONGICORNES 
are Tetramerous. 
Mouth with 4 Palpi, quadri- and tri-articulate. 
Mandibles always corneous. 
Antenne elongated, not moniliform. 
. Eyes emarginate. 
Elytra horny or coriaceous. 
Legs, hinder not incrassated. 
Tibie 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. 
All five-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 Scarabeide, and the legs are 
almost universally robust. In Melolonthide, as indeed in all the Lamellicornes, the tibiæ 
are more or less lobed or toothed outside*. In Chrysophora and Pelidnota, in Ripsinus, 
Dichelus and Pachycnema we find the hinder legs very much larger than the other four ; 
the thighs are very much incrassated, the tibiæ often curved and toothed, whilst the 
genus Hexodon proves what extraordinary departures there are from the typical forms. 
When we arrive at the Zucanide 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 antennæ. 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 Lucanide, &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 antennæ, 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 y 
claims to affinity t. Next comes Spondylis, which in the form of the antenne and the 
proportions of the palpi, agrees with Hypocephalus, but the mentum is not trilobed, the 
* Vide Copris, Curt. Brit. Ent. pl. 414; Geotrupes, pl. 266, Aphodius, pl. 27, also Melolontha, Cetonia, and 
Lucanus. | 
+ I may add that I consider Trictenotoma a Heteromerous Lucaniform beetle, "n a Longicorn. 
