84 Major F. J. Sidney Parry on 



it does, in general form and character, a very marked 

 resemblance to several species now included in the genus 

 Prof^opocoiluii, and more especially to P. Spencii, Hope, 

 of which a figure is now given (PI. II. fig. 1). Whether 

 the characters adduced by Mr. Watcrhouse are sufficient 

 to warrant the creation of a new genus, may, perhaps, 

 admit of some doubt, as in reference to three of the cha- 

 racters, viz., the form of the mentum, the canaliculate 

 presternum, and the eyes divided by a canthus, these 

 are also present in Prosocopoilus forceps from Sumatra, 

 which species, on account of the peculiar character of the 

 armature of the mandibles, has been located in the same 

 section as P. Spencii, P. bulbosus, and others, and might, 

 possibly, with equal propriety be raised to generic rank, 

 looking at the very great difierence this insect exhibits 

 from any other of the species of the family, in the singu- 

 lar formation of the mandibles, so conspicuously forcipi- 

 form, in the eyes being divided by a canthus, and 

 finally, in the peculiarly sinuate sides of the prothorax. 

 In reference to the apical dilatation of the four pos- 

 terior tibiae, as remarked in P. Archeri, this character 

 (although somewhat modified) is very conspicuous in 

 PsaUdoremus Motschuhkii, and still more so in two species 

 belonging to the Dorcuhv, viz., PsciuJ ado reus carhonarius, 

 West., and Sclcrostumus Bacchus, Hope. The extreme 

 brevity of the tarsi is certainly most peculiar in this 

 species, and not to be met with in any other belonging 

 to this family, but is, I think, scarcely of generic value. 

 Taking, therefore, into considex'ation these facts, I deem 

 it preferable, for the present, to place this species in the 

 genus Prosopocoihis. The female is at present unknown. 



ProsopocnUus Spencii. 

 Prosopocoilus hnlhosus. 



Lucanus bulbosus, Hope, Cat. Luc. p. 20 (clypeo bituber- 



culato); nee L. bulbosus, Hope, Tr. Linn. Soc. xviii. 



580, pi. xl. fig. 2 (clypeo unituberculato) . 



Having recently remarked the discrepancy in the 

 form of the clypeus described by Mr, Hope in his Cata- 

 logue of Lucanidcr., and the figure given of L. bidhosus 

 in the Trans. Linn. Soc, that organ being described in 

 the former as bituberculate, whereas in the latter it is in- 

 dubitably unituberculate, it becomes apparent that two 



