12 GEO. II. IIOKN, M. D. 



Literature of Pleocoma. 



Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila,, 1856, p. 24. 



Ill this artii'le J)r. LeCoiiti' estahlisluHl tlie genus and desi-i-ilx'd 

 P. fimhr'nda. 



Tlie original specimen (PI. 1, fig. 1) was badly nuitilated, having 

 been partially eaten by a bird. The oral organs were destroyed, the 

 abdomen entirely gone ; one antenna and part of the legs remained. 



In this article, at the beginning of a paragraph, T^eConte says of 

 Pleocoma, " apparently belonging to the Dynastidie," and after some 

 speculations concerning resemblances to Syrichthus and Athyreus 

 (our species are now IJradycinetus) concludes the paragraph as fol- 

 lows : " Doubt must, therefore, be entertained whether the genus 

 should be jilaced with the I)ynastida> or Geotrupida'." 



Considering the material at his disposal I think the article is an 

 evidence of his wonderful analytical powers. 



Pacific R. R. Reports, 47th parallel, vol. ix, App. i, p. 40, pi. I, fig. 3. 



In this article LeConte again says, " as the oral organs and the 

 abdomen are destroyed I cannot tell whether this genus Ix-iongs to 

 the Dynastides or Geotrupides ; in either case the four-joiiiti'd aii- 

 teiinal club is equally remarkable. The attiuities, so far as 1 can 

 understand them, seem to be rather with Geotrupes." 



In a foot note, written on the eve of a journey, the author s[)eaks 

 of the arrival of a perfect specimen closely resembling /j»t6r<«<(^, dif- 

 fering in having a seven-jointed antennal club. This he suspected 

 might be a sexual ditterence. The foot note contains this expression, 

 "Although agreeing with Geotrupicho in the eleven-jointed antenna', 

 the form of the antenniB is entirely anomalous in that and allied 

 groups, and the small size of the oral organs would seem to indicate 

 a new group between Geotrupida' and (V)prida\" 



The specimen referred to in the foot note belongs to /*. h'ni'n'i)Uin, 

 and it seems to me unfair that Gerstaecker says that LeGonte changed 

 his diagnosis of the genus when the remark, l)y LeConte's statement, 

 applies to the insect just at that moment reci'ived. 



Proceedings Acad. Nat, Sci. Phila., 1859, p. 71. 



In this article LeConte briefly describes the oral organs obtained 

 in a fragmentary condition from the stomach of a woodpecker, and 

 concludes with these words: '* It will be seen that combined with 

 the eleven-jointed antenna^ with polyi)hyllous club, the characters 



