X MONTHLY PROCEEDINGS. 



The fifth vokiine of Coleoptera c(jiiiprises the Cerainbycidas and 

 Bruchidse (the intermediate volumes being in preparation), and con- 

 sists of 537 pages and 26 phates, ilkistrating over 500 species or va- 

 rieties. The part relating to Cerand)ycida} is the result of the studies 

 of Mr. H. W. Bates, that concerning the Bruchidae of Dr. David 

 Sharp. 



Perilasius Bates, j). 16. This genus is related to Brothylm and 

 O&tnidus. It differs from the former in having the anterior coxse less 

 angulated externally ; the antennae are similarly sulcate. Omddm 

 has the anterior coxse as in Ferilasim, but the antennae are not sul- 

 cate. P. championi has a great superficial resemblance to 0. guttatvs 

 Lee. 



Page 84. Mr. Bates proposes to unite under the generic name 

 Sphenothecvs those species which, in our fauna, are divided among 

 several genera, viz. : Sphenothecus, Isclmoaiemis, Entomosterna and 

 possibly Perarthrm. As we have but one species in each it would be 

 presuming to controvert the opinion of Mr. Bates, but the separation 

 of genera in the Cerambycidae seems to depend entirely on the stand- 

 point from which separation starts. Important structural characters 

 have, in this family, at times merely specific or sexual value, as be- 

 tween Gaurotes eyanipeiiuis and abdomhni/l.t in the mesosternum as 

 well as in the vestiture of the hind tarsi in the two sexes of Acviceop)^ 

 militaris. The form of the mandibles, the initial point of LeConte's 

 subdivision, seems to me more important and less subject to variation 

 than the form of the mesosternum. 



Lepturges infilatus Bates, very closely resembles our avr/uhitm, but 

 is less distinctly punctured. 



L. symmetrimacula Bates, is extremely close to our symvietricus. 

 I have seen but one of the form. 



On page 216 Mr. Bates recurs to the question of Am])hi()nycha 

 and its type, and I think supplies what was lacking in my previous 

 notes in proof of the fact that LeConte was the first who described 

 the genus and gave a definite type. Mr. Bates' argument is correct 

 if we admit the propriety of shifting one of Chevrolat's names from 

 one type to another, and then admitting that Leseleuc established 

 the genus, although " he did not give a generic formula." 



On page 314 the name Agalissus gratus Hald., has been placed us 

 a synonym of clytoides, while the case should be reversed. 



