of Lucanoid Coleoptera. 49 
but whether it may be regarded as a distinct or as the minor 
variety of an allied species appears to me uncertain, not being 
acquainted with a sufficient number of specimens to enable me to 
form any decided opinion for the present. I incline to regard it 
as the var. min, of LZ. Tityus, Hope. 
EvuryTRACHELUS SAIGA. 
Lucanus Saiga, Oliv. Ins. I. i. 29, 19, tab. v. fig. 18 (¢). 
Dorcus Saiga, Burm. Handb. v. 387. 
Lucanus inermis, Fab. Syst. El. ii. 251, 17 (2? sec. Burm. 1. c.). 
Dorcus inermis, Hope, Cat. p. 6 (@ ). 
In reference to the citation of the LZ. inermis of Fabricius as sy- 
nonymous with the present species, I would offer the following 
remarks, prefacing them with that author’s description. 
L, mandibulis exsertis, inermibus, capitis thoracisque lateribus 
punctatis. 
Hab. Sumatra, 
Statura et summa affinitas Z. parallelepipedi, at mandibule in- 
ermes ; caput punctatum; thorax dorso levi nitido, lateribus 
punctatis ; elytra subpunctata; corpus nigrum. 
Dr. Burmeister is evidently of opinion that the species in 
question is a female, and belongs to the family Dorcide. The 
mandibles, however, are so distinctly described as ‘“ exsertis 
inermibus,” and such a structure is so utterly at variance with the 
general character of the females of this family, which are in- 
variably found to be provided with a small internal tooth on their 
mandibles, that considerable doubt arises whether Dr. Burmeister’s 
opinion that the Fabrician imermis is the female of D. Saiga, 
Oliv., is correct. M. Reiche, in his critique upon Dr. Burmeis- 
ter’s work (vid. Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. vol. i. Ser. 3, p. 80), holds a 
contrary opinion. The specimen in the Hopeian Collection was 
received from Mr. Westermann of Copenhagen as inermis, Fab., 
and proves upon examination to be identical with the female of 
D. Saiga, thus supporting Dr. Burmeister’s conclusion. If the 
determination of the species by Mr. Westermann were founded 
upon an actual comparison with a specimen of it in the old Fa- 
brician Collection (still existing, I believe, in the Museum at 
Copenhagen), it is manifest that the original description would 
be erroneous, as a small tooth is unquestionably present in the 
insect received from Copenhagen. It must, however, be remem- 
bered that Mr. M‘Leay, in his Hor. Ent., cites Luc. inermis, 
Fab., as belonging to the genus Agus, although no allusion to it 
VOL, II, THIRD SERIES, PART I.— MAY, 1864, E 
