412 Mr. W. F. Kirby on Dorydium (?) westwood, 
Buchanan White’s description better than with Signoret’s, 
except in size (Signoret gives 11 mm., and Buchanan 
White 14). The insect is probably variable in size and 
markings, or in the absence of markings, or there may 
be more than one allied species; without a good series, 
and perhaps observation of the living insects, it might be 
difficult to clear up this point. 
Buchanan White received three specimens from Wake- 
field, which had been taken by Fereday near Christ- 
church. He remarks, ‘‘'This curious species strongly 
resembles the seed of one of the larger grasses.” 
Signoret received his specimens from John Scott ; they 
appear to be darker than the types; but the allied 
Australian species described by G. R. Waterhouse 
(Trans. Ent. Soc.,i1., p. 195) under the genus Cephalelus, 
differ much in size and colour. They differ, too, from the 
species referred to Dorydiwm by the longer and more 
tapering frontal prominence, 
There is a curious confusion relating to the genera 
Cephalelus and Dorydiwm which I will try to clear up. 
In 1832, Percheron (Mag. Zool. Cl. ix., pl. 48) described 
and figured a species from an unknown locality, which he 
called Cephalelus imfumatus. 
In 1839, Burmeister (Handb. Ent., u1., p. 106) de- 
scribed an insect from the Cape under the name of 
Dorydium paradovwm, but at p. 1006 stated, that his 
insect was identical with Percheron’s, and shortly after- 
wards figured it as such in his “Genera Insectoram.” 
Instead of dropping the generic name, as he was bound 
to do, he used it again for an allied insect from Sicily, 
which he described and figured as Dorydiwm lanceolatum. 
This figure is referred to at p. 1006, and appears to have 
been published while Part II. of the ‘‘ Handbuch” was 
passing through the press, and would, therefore, have 
priority over it. 
Nor does the confusion end here. In 18387, Herrich- 
Schiffer described (Panzer, Heft 144, pl. 6) an insect 
from Nuremberg as Jassus paradoxus; oddly enough, 
another species with a long frontal prominence, though, 
judging from the figure, I should say that it is certainly 
not congeneric with either Dorydiwm I. (Cephalelus), or 
Dorydium I. Signoret (Ann. Soc. Ent. France (5), 
ix., pp. 259-265) confuses everything. Firstly, he gives 
the genus Cephalelus with four species : infumatus, 
