﻿of Lucanoid Coleoptera. 53 



collections possessing long series of the various species of yEgus 

 from Java, but I have never yet detected JEgus cheUfer of M'Leay 

 as coming from that island. 



/Ecus LUNATUs, Weber, Obs. Ent. i. 83, 1. (Luc). Sumatra. 



Fab. Syst. El. ii. 252, 19. Sumatra. 



Burm. Handb. der Ent. v. 400. Sumatra and 

 Java. 

 As regards the descriptions of Weber and Fabricius of this 

 insect, their extreme conciseness precludes the possibility of re- 

 cognizing with any certainty the species alluded to, the habitat 

 Sumatra being given by both authors ; Dr. Burmeister, 1. c, 

 records the species as distinct, from Java as well as from Sumatra, 

 placing it next acuminatiis of Fabricius, which belongs to that sec- 

 tion of yEgus having the head in front (in fully developed males) 

 armed with a tubercle ; according to Dr. Burmeister's description, 

 this character does not exist, and the insect in question must be 

 considered as an undeveloped male, but whether to be referred to 

 yEgus acuminatiis of Fabricius or to be considered as a distinct 

 species is, I think, somewhat problematical. The extraordinary 

 variation of character exhibited in a series of specimens of the 

 same species in this genus renders it most perplexing to recognize 

 with any certitude their identity from description only. 



iEous Kandiensis, Hope, Cat. p. 6. 

 The type specimen in the Hopeian Collection {$ var. minor) is 

 referred by Mr. Hope in his Catalogue as a variety of y^E. cica- 

 tricosus, Wiedemann. (The insect in Mr. Hope's Collection under 

 the name of cicatricosiis, Wiedemann, appears to be only the 

 var. minor of acumhmlus, Fabricius.) Having examined a nu- 

 merous series of the various developments of this insect from 

 Ceylon, as well as others closely allied to it from the Philippines 

 and Borneo, I find so much affinity existing in general character 

 with such a perplexing variability of sculpture, that it is almost 

 impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion as to whether the 

 specimens from Ceylon, Borneo and the Philippines are to be 

 considered as geographical varieties of yEg. acuminatiis of Fa- 

 bricius, or to be regarded as distinct to be united under the name 

 of Kandiensis. There is certainly one character to be remarked 

 in the numerous specimens examined, viz., that the interior tooth 

 of the mandibles (which appears to exist in all fully developed 

 males of this section of the genus) is placed slightly above the 

 centre and not near the base as in /Eg. acuminaius ; in this respect 



