830 Mr. A. M. Lea's Notes on 



species of the subfamily are concerned, I believe there 

 would be fewer synonyms and less mistakes made, if most 

 of them were regarded as belonging to one comprehensive 

 genus. 



After sorting- out Diandichtis, Schizosternus* Cyphodera, 

 Brachycaulus and Lachnahothra there remains a mass of 

 species referred to Cryptoceplialus, Loxopleurus, Cadmus 

 and various other genera or subgeuera.j- Certainly some 

 of these appear to cluster in groups, and the characteristic 

 species of these groups can be readily distinguished from 

 characteristic species of other groups ; but there are so 

 many intermediate species that it seems to me no natural 

 system can be devised for sorting the species into stable 

 genera. In the new species I have briefly noted the 

 characters of each species that are supposed to be its dis- 

 tinguishing generic features, and have purposely refrained 

 from proposing fresh generic names, placing the more 

 aberrant species at the end of Cryptoccphalus. 



Dr. Chapuis after describing Cadmus cariosus says: — 

 "II se rappr;<che du Cadmus suhsulcatus, SufFr. {Ochrosopsis 

 rufescens, Saund.) que nous avons du placer dans le genre 

 Cadmus en egard k son presternum dont la base est plus 

 ou moins arrondie. La distinction entre les deux formes 

 est facile." He himself however refers to Cadmus a species 

 C. quadrivittatus\ in which the intercoxal process is rather 

 deeply emarginate, although in general appearance it is a 

 normal Cadmus\ in Cadmus luctuosus, Chp., this part is 

 again decidedly emarginate, although not so deeply as in 

 quadrivittatus. 



Loxopleurus is supposed to be distinguished by the 

 intercoxal process of presternum being drawn out into a 

 bhmt triangular tip. The majority of the species stand- 

 ing in the catalogue under Loxop)leurus were described by 

 Chapuis, but on examining L. gcnialis, Chp., I find that 

 it is decidedly bilobed ; in L. chalceus, Chp., it appears 

 at first sight to be widely truncate, but on close examina- 

 tion it can be seen to be feebly bilobed, although the lobes 

 are occasionally more or less obscured by the clothing. 



* The deeply emarginate prosternum is the only really valid 

 feature of this genus, and this is but an exaggeration of the bilobed 

 apex of Crijptocepludna. 



f In this paper I am not dealing with Ditvopidus Elaphodes and 

 the genera closely allied to them. 



X This species is so distinct that I cannot l)e mistaken in my 

 identification. 



