15 



HENTZ TO HARRIS. 



Northampton, April 23, 1826. 



I thank you for the information about Ips fasciata ', it is not 

 the first error detected in Fabricius. 



My doubts about Cetonia harlata are removed ; I knew that 

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

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

 vuljnnus 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 lamellas dis- 

 engaged. It belongs, therefore, to Amphicoma, as you thought, 

 if on dissectino; it we find it to have corneous mandibles. The 

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

 very prominent. RojMa trifasciata I have called 3Ielolontlia 

 variabilis Fabr. or Hqplia 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 from 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 MelolontJia 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 Stilbopttera 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 ; 



