82 Prof. J. 0. Westwood on Cetonia aurata, &c. 



is a paper by the same author, entitled, " Cetonia aurata 

 Linne (der Goldkiifer) am Amur in Euryomia- und Glycy- 

 2)liana-Si\'iPA\ verwandelt •— Protaetia Bcnsoni, Westw, von 

 Himalaya 1 ein Bcitrag zur Kritischcn Deutung der Cetonia- 

 formen," pp. 240 — 252, in -which the author endeavours 

 to prove that Cetonia cuprcola, Kraatz, Glycyphana 

 viridi-ohscura, Motsch., Euryomia ainouriensis, Motsch., 

 Glycyphana pilifera, Motsch., and probably Protaetia 

 ^ewsom, Westw., Trans. Ent. Soc., Lond., vol. V. (1849), 

 p. 145, PI. 16, f. 3, are all merely varieties of Cetonia 

 aurata. * 



At the meeting of the Belgian Entomological Society 

 on the 3rd January, 1880, the Baron von Harold, alluding 

 to the remarks of Dr. Kraatz, admits their correctness, and 

 adds that C. Carthnsia may be added to the number of 

 varieties, but that C. inlifera must be regarded as a dis- 

 tinct species, with which he considers Pr. Bensoni to be 

 identical, the latter being more strongly punctured. 



I do not feel called upon to support the claim to specific 

 rank of the five first-mentioned supposed species, my 

 object being to exhibit the typical specimen of Protaetia 

 Bensoni side by side with an English Cetonia aurata in 

 order to prove their specific distinctions. 



P. Bensoni will thus be seen to be a much smaller, more 

 slender, and flatter insect, with comparatively more slender 

 limbs ; a complete coat of dull green velvet-like pile, with 

 white markings differing from those of the Cetonia 

 in the two straight white lines down the pronotum, 

 and especially in the shape of the head, which is much 

 more conical in front than in the Cetonia. Taking all 

 these characteristics into consideration, I must be alloAved 

 to maintain my conviction that Protaetia Bensoni cannot 

 be regarded as a local modification of Cetonia aurata. If 

 the specific identity of the two insects be maintained, size, 

 form, sculpture, clothing, markings, and geographical dis- 

 tribution must no longer be regarded as afi'ording specific 

 distinctions. 



* I -will not here entei' into any defence of the different genera of 

 Cotonlidcr here alluded to. I fear it must be allowed that far too many- 

 genera have been established not only in this, but in very many other 

 families of insects. 



