﻿of Lucanoid Coleoplera. 49 



but whether it may be regarded as a distinct or as the minor 

 variety of an allied species appears to me uncertain, not being 

 acquainted with a sufficient number of specimens to enable me to 

 furm any decided opinion for the present. I incline to regard it 

 as the var. min. of E, Tityus, Hope. 



EuRYTRAClIELUS SaIGA. 



Lacanus Smga^OXw. Ins. I. i. 29, 19, tab. v. fig. 18 (^). 

 Dorcus Saiga, Burm. Handb. v. 387. 



Lucanus inermis, Fab. Syst. El. ii. 251, 17 ( ? ? sec. Burm. 1. c). 

 Dorcus inermis, Hope, Cat. p. 6 ( ? ). 



In reference to the citation of the L. inertms of Fabricius as sy- 

 nonymous with the present species, I would offer the following 

 remarks, prefacing them with that author's description. 



L. mandibulis exsertis, inermibus, capitis thoracisque lateribus 

 punctatis. 



Hab. Sumatra. 



Statura et summa affinitas L. parallelepipedi, at mandibulae in- 

 ermes ; caput punctatum ; thorax dorso Isevi nitido, lateribus 

 punctatis ; elytra subpunctata ; corpus nigrum. 



Dr. Burmeister is evidently of opinion that the species in 

 question is a female, and belongs to the family Dorcidce. The 

 mandibles, however, are so distinctly described as " exsertis 

 inermibus," and such a structure is so utterly at variance with the 

 general character of the females of this family, which are in- 

 variably found to be provided with a small internal tooth on their 

 mandibles, that considerable doubt arises whether Dr. Burmeister's 

 opinion that the Fabrician inermis is the female of D. Saiga, 

 Oliv., is correct. M. Reiche, in his critique upon Dr. Burmeis- 

 ter's work (vid. Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. vol. i. Ser. $, p. 80), holds a 

 contrary opinion. The specimen in the Hopeian Collection was 

 received from Mr. Westermann of Copenhagen as inermis, Fab., 

 and proves upon examination to be identical with the female of 

 D. Saiga, tbus supporting Dr. Burmeister's conclusion. If the 

 determination of the species by Mr. Westermann were founded 

 upon an actual comparison with a specimen of it in the old Fa- 

 brician Collection (still existing, I believe, in the Museum at 

 Copenhagen), it is manifest that the original description would 

 be erroneous, as a small tooth is unquestionably present in the 

 insect received from Copenhagen. It must, however, be remem- 

 bered that Mr. M'Leay, in his Hor. Ent., cites Luc. inermis, 

 Fab., as belonging to the genus yEgits, although no allusion to it 



VOL, II. THIRD SERIES, PART I. — MAY, 1864. E 



