Dr. Heineken’s Deseripiion of Cerascopus. 39 
The only family of Latreille’s “« Genera, &c.”” which will admit this 
insect isthe second, Cimicides. From the section Ploteres it is excluded 
by its habits (which are strictly those.of a land and in-door animal), its 
claws, antenne and rostrum. From the section /canthille, every thing 
is exclusive : and it can only be admitted within that of Reduwvinz by a little 
accommodation. This section contains four genera, viz. Vabis, Reduvius, 
Zelus and Ploiaria, In Nabis the body is “conico-ovate,”’ the legs “ not 
“* long,” the core “ short,’’ the insertion of the antenne is “ beneath,”’ 
and the first joint of the rostrum is “ not longer than the second.” — In 
Reduvius there are the additional discrepancies of the second joini of the 
rostrum “the longest,’ and the presence of “ ocedli.”” Of Zelus and 
Ploiaria, no generic characters are given; I therefore conclude that they 
are amenable to those of their predecessor Reduwus, but in the “ His- 
** toire Naturelle, &c.’’ the distinguishing character of Zelus is ‘ pattes 
* simples, ni ravisseuses, ni trés-courtes,’’ and the Ploiaria there have 
* le corps long et étroit,’’ ‘de petits yeux lisses,’’ and ‘le corselet 
** assez plat en dessus se rétrécissant et diminuant d’ épaisseur de son 
** bord postérieur a celui de devant.’” When therefore, in addition to all 
this, it is excluded for equally good reasons from the numerous genera, 
either invented or adopted by Leach, which Samouelle has given; and 
possesses the peculiarities of not even the rudiments (as far as I can 
ascertain) of elytra or wings, of a bowed first joint to the antenne, of 
using these members as tactors, measurers and explorers, of the second 
joint of the rostrum being palpably the shortest, and of exserted and com- 
plicated organs of generation ; I hope, that even in this genus-making age, 
I shall be held justified in offering my small “‘ sum of more, to that which 
* had too much.” Two genera (Holoptile and Pétalocheire) are given 
in the “ Familles Nat. &c.”” with which I am perfectly unacquainted ; 
should our insect belong to either of them, the name which I have 
intended as a generic, may easily be converted into a specific one. 
The details which I have added can in neither case do harm. * 
* Dr. Heineken’s insect cannot be an Holvptilus, Lepel. and Serv., the 
antenne in that genus being only three-jointed, with the last two joints fea- 
thered with long hairs ; nor a Petalocheirus, Pal. de Beauvoir, in which the 
body is not linear, the legs of only moderate length, and the anterior tibie 
dilated into the form of a shield. Its nearest relation is to Ploiaria, in which 
