2IC 



in the proportion of the joints. While in the latter genus the fifth joint 

 is but little longer than each of three preceeding joints, and is somewhat 

 shorter than the first, it attains in Pleocoma double the length of the 

 fourth. The tarsal joints are here also not only furnished at tip with stifl" 

 bristles but are also furnished throughout with bunches of much longer 

 and finer hair. 



After having in the preceeding disproved all the grounds brought 

 forward by Leconte to justify his placing Pkocovia with the Geotrypini, 

 by proving its Melolonthid character — in the imago state — , it remains 

 to examine the remark of the author that the larva described by Baron 

 von Osten-Sacken "fully confirms" the placing of the genus between the 

 ' Geoirypini ?iTtd Trogini. That the " Pleocoma-larva " made known by 

 Osten-Sacken belongs to the Scarabseidae laparosticli, admits indeed of no 

 doubt, for It possesses the divided maxillary lobes, insisted on by both 

 Erichson (Naturgesch. d. Insect. Deutschl., p. 716) and Schiodte, (Na- 

 turh. Tidskrift 3 Raek., IX p. 253) as characteristic of this division. But 

 on this proof of a laparostict Lamellicorn larva, are in fact all of Von 

 Osten-Sacken's statements in reference to its relationship to be confined ; 

 what goes beyond, the imagined near relationship to the larva; of the 

 Geolrypini ■^x\<\ 7/'(?^?'«z' may be easily proved erroneous. But must not 

 the above proved Melolonthid nature of the imago, fail, by the fact that 

 the larva decidedly contradicts the structure of a pleurostict Scarabeid.'' 

 If the latter were really the case, doubtless ! But how is it proved 

 that the larva described by Von Osten-Sacken is really that oi Pleocoma} 

 Certainly not through the statement of Leconte, that he received from ]\Ir. 

 Behrens a larva^ — undoubtedly Lamellicorn — found deep in the ground, 

 alone ! And nowhere is there furnished any proof of its relation \.o Pho- 

 conia, which, as in California the most various Lamellicorn larva must 

 live in the earth, seems absolutely necessary. The disproportionate length 

 alone- — 50 mm., or rather greater than the full grown larva of Mdolontha 

 vulgaris — given by Osten-Sacken woukl seem sufficient to give rise to the 

 gravest doubts as to its relationship to Pkocoma. The doubts must nec- 

 essarily lead to a direct negative to the above question, if it is proveable 

 that from the descrij)lion and figures of Osten-Sacken the larva baselessly 

 referred to Pleocoma cannot belong anywhere but to a group already well 

 known in its early stages — i. e. \\\c lAicanidie. I maintain therefore shdrily 

 and positively that the larva can have no possible connection with 

 Pleocoma. 



That the remarks of Osten-Sacken, added to his descri])ti()n, in refer- 

 ence to the relation of this larva to those of other known Lamellicorns, 

 are particularly inclined to invite confidence, can hardly be mainiainrtl. 

 To compare a 50 mm. long larva with Geolrypini and Trogini is strange 



