70 AFRICAN CETONIID2. 
beautiful insect, which is a native of the Gold Coast, Africa. 
Fig. 1 a represents its maxilla, both lobes of which are furnished 
with a strong tooth; fig. 1%, the extremity of the deeply-cleft 
mentum and the labial palpi; and 1 e, the mesosternum. 
The Rev. F. W. Hope first proposed the genus Mecynorhina in 
his “‘ Coleopterist’s Manual,” part 1, p. 60, 1837. He, however, 
added Goliathus micans, Daphnis, and Grallii, to Polyphemus ; but 
in the Supplement to that work, p. 119, he restricted it to the last- 
named insect, stating that a second species is in the possession of 
Mr. Joseph Hooker, of Glasgow, which he considered as undescribed ; 
but which, I am able to state, is the male of Goliathus torquatus *. 
Mr. MacLeay has, however, separated Polyphemus and Torquatus 
into distinct subsections (as shownin hisarrangement of the Goliathi+, 
abstracted at page 6 of this work,) in consequence of the difference 
in the armature of the head ofthe males. The male of G. torquatus, 
however, has two short horns in front of the eyes, although the 
extremity of the middle horn is not forked. The two species, how- 
ever, precisely agree in the armature of the tibie in both sexes, and, 
which is of more importance, in the structure of the mavxille and 
mentum, as well as in the velvety clothing of the upper surface. 
These two insects, therefore, constitute a group of precisely equal 
rank with Dicronorhinat, Hope (délas, Lap. Hist. Nat. An. Art. 
Col. v. 2, p. 162) ;—Enudicella, White (Gol. Gralli, Daphnis, 
Smithii, Morgani, &c., in which the males have the mando 
toothless, although in the females it is armed with a strong 
tooth, and the fore tibize toothed only on the outside in the males) ; 
and Ccelorrhina, Burmeister MSS. (Gol. 4. maculatus, Olivier) ; 
the last-named group being distinguished by the male having the 
anterior tibie entirely destitute of teeth, and the clypeus concave in 
front with a short central recurved horn dilated at the tip, like a 
* Schonherr evidently changed the name of this species to avoid confusion with Cetonia 
torquata of Fabricius, a different species. In the male of M. torquata (as appears from Mr. 
Joseph Hooker’s drawings, and Dr. Burmeister’s manuscripts) the mando is unarmed ; in the 
female, however, in Mr. Hope’s collection I find it furnished with a strong tooth. Mecynor- 
hina thus differs from Eudicella, chiefly in the armature of the fore tibize of the males. 
+ The various faets stated in the first article of this work and in the present paper, together 
with the circumstances that Goliathus Hépfneri is most nearly allied to Ischnostoma (accord- 
ing tothe manuscripts and figures of Dr. Burmeister), and that the Coryphe (Narycius) olivaceus 
of MacLeay and the Goliathus (Dicronocephalus) opalus of MacLeay, are sexes of the same 
species, (Dr. Burmeister having shown me M. Dupont’s original specimens) will render neces- 
sary an entire revision of the Goliathideous Cetoniide, whilst the removal of Cryptodus to the 
Dynastidx, Macroma to the Cremastocheilides, and Philistina (or Mycteristes) to the Goliathides, 
will render equally necessary a revision of the classification of the entire family of Cetoniide. 
~ A more important character of this group than has hitherto been noticed has been sug- 
gested to me by Professor Burmeister, namely, the want of a tooth to the lower lobe of the 
maxilla. This I find to be the case in both sexes. 
