ANNULOSA JAVANICA. 19 
Mandihule ut in Dicelo. 
Palpi mazillares articulo penultimo et ultimo eequalibus, hoe eylindrico ovali. 
Mentum dente sinus bifido. 
Thorax transverso-quadratus lateribus rotundatis marginatis, antice emarginatus, postice 
truncatus, medio canaliculatus, fossula lineari utrinque postice impressus. 
Corpus valde depressum elytris stridtis. Pedes antici maris tarsorum articulis duobus 
dilatatis. 
Oss. The affinities of this genus would be very difficult to discover were it not for a Brazil 
insect, which I believe forms M. Latreille’s genus Microcephalus,* and which clearly connects it 
with Dicelus. This Brazilian insect has the subquadrate mentum of Dicelindus, and the securi- 
form palpi of Dicalus. 1t may also be worth while to compare our insect with Amara 
and Dinodes. 
30. Fexspaticus. D. nigro-iridescens levissimus labro antennis tarsisque piceis, elytris septemstriatis : margine 
exarato postice subcatenulato. 
Long. corp. 3 
Caput atronitidum, postice subiridescens, facie bifossulata, labro quadrato piceo. Antenne articulis basa- 
libus nitidis piceis, reliquis pubescentibus rufis. Thorax politissimus iridescens. Scutellum minutissimum. 
Elyira sicut Felspath politissima. Abdomen subiridescens. Pedes nigri tarsis ferrugineis. 
* In protesting against the slovenly mode lately adopted by some continental naturalists, of publishing generic names 
without defining the genera to which they are applied, I must express my regret at seeing it now resorted to by those 
who have most powerfully appealed against it. Because they are themselves well acquainted with the insects to 
which they assign certain names, they fancy that others must also know them, forgetting that the general adoption of 
the name must always depend on the accurate definition of the relation which exists between it and the insect. At least 
I hope, that it is this species of oversight which alone occasions the grievous inconveniences of which Entomology has 
to complain ; for I can scarcely suppose that naturalists, to whom the science owes so much in other respects, would 
condescend to confuse it, or thwart its progress for the mere sake of securing, by a doubtful priority, so trifling an 
advantage as a generic name, and so miserable a fame as must depend upon such priority. Certain it is, however, that 
inextricable confusion must arise from this course of proceeding, unless it be now at once firmly resisted; and unless 
Entomologists resolye to abide by the maxims laid down on this subject by Linnzus and Fabricius, Proceeding 
on the principles laid down by these great authorities, who have both declared characters absolutely necessary, 
in order that genera may be known, I am sure that the reader will consider me justified in considering no name as 
secure, unless it be accompanied with a character. In these pages all names of mere catalogues, whether generic or 
specific, shall be as much overlooked as if they never had existed. In some few cases, perhaps where the names like 
Rembus, Omaseus, are assigned to described insects, and the meaning of the author is thus, in some measure, ascer- 
tained, I may choose not to increase the confusion by refusing to adopt them, although M. Latreille has most truly said, 
that even such names without characters, “ ne sont que de simples indications et wimposent aucune loi.” 
I ought here to observe, on my own part, that it may possibly be found that M. Wiedemann has published in the 
pages of his Zoologisches Magazin, some few of the species here described ; and of course, his names in such cases 
must be adopted as having the right of priority. Although I have long been in expectation of receiving the work 
complete, I unfortunately, at present, only possess some loose sheets of it, which I owe to the kindness of Dr: Escholtz. 
In every instance, however, where I could obtain M. Wiedemann’s names, I have carefully adopted them, for his 
descriptions are not only detailed, but very accurate. 
D2 
