of some new Exotic Coleoptera. 211 



than wide, and the apex of the prosternura is deflexed, and extends 

 in a rather narrow carina between the anterior coxae, scarcely 

 reaching backwards beyond the latter; the mesosternum is sim- 

 ple. The mandibles are bifid at the tip, but the under tooth is 

 scarcely visible when seen from above. The anterior surface of 

 each of the joints of the antennae (after the second) is impressed 

 and covered with a papillose membrane, and the tibia are fur- 

 nished with two spurs, one of which in the fore legs is nearly as 

 long as the basal joint of the tarsus; on the other feet they are of 

 equal size. 



With the typical Cucujidce (with which it has been regarded as 

 allied) this insect possesses but little real affinity, as may be seen 

 by consulting my illustrations of a paper on the relations of the 

 genus Clhridlum, published in the last volume of the Zoological 

 Journal, whereas the details of »S'/)o?z(/?//i5, there given (PI. XLVII. 

 Supp. fig. 8), are much nearer in affinity. There are two remark- 

 able genera represented with their details in my " Cabinet of 

 Oriental Entomology," PI. XLI. fig. 6 and 7, under the names of 

 Prlonophora and Petalophora, also of doubtful relationship, which 

 it will be serviceable to compare with the insect before us, nor 

 must Trictenotonia and Hijpoccplialus be overlooked. 



Erichsonia denlifrons, Westw. (PI. XXII. fig. 2, and details.) 



E. castanea, nitida, rude punctata, capite antice longitudinaliter 

 4-carinata, carinis intermediis conciguis; pronoto etiam 

 4-carinato, carinis lateralibus ex angulis anticis fere ad mar- 

 ginem posticum suboblique extensis, intermediis antice et 

 postice abbreviatis ; elytris pallidioribus, nitidis, irregulariter 

 punctatis, lateribus setosis. 



Long. corp. lin. 5|. 



Habitat in Mexico, 



In AIus. Chevrolat, etiam olim in Mus. Dupont, Parisiis. 



The Coleopterous insect last described is so singular and inte- 

 resting in its relations, that I have not hesitated to depart from 

 the ordinary rule of Entomological nomenclature, by giving to it 

 a generic term, commemorative of the name of an Entomologist 

 of the highest excellence, who has lately been removed from among 

 us. I am well aware of the objections which have been raised 

 against the use of names of individuals as applied to designate 

 insects or other objects of nature, either generically or specifi- 

 cally. Some authors indeed seem to take up a name of this kind 

 in many cases, for want of a better, and therefore we often see 



