8 
forms of development exist; these may be specified as—var. max., var. med., and var, 
minor ; and if future describers will notify from which form their description is drawn 
up, such a notification will, I feel confident, considerably assist the student, and per- 
haps also prevent other Entomologists from describing as new species insects which, 
after all, are only subordinate modifications of form of species previously well known 
and described. 
ProsopocoiLus BuLBosus, Hope ¢ (var. minor), Thoms. Cat. p. 396. 
“‘T have examined the unique specimen in the Hopeian collection which was de- 
scribed by Mr. Hope (together with Lucanus bulbosus and other species) under 
the name of Lucanus Spencii in the ‘ Transactions of the Linnean Society,’ vol. xviii. 
p- 589. Ihave no hesitation in regarding L. Spencii and L. bulbosus as identical. 
The type-specimen of L. Spencii is one with fully-developed mandibles. The name 
of Spencii has a slight priority (vide the publication alluded to), and, as well out of 
deference to the memory of that distinguished Entomologist, ought, I think, to be 
retained. The var. miuvor of this species appears to be far from uncommon ; but the 
specimen in the Hopeian collection is the only one on record of the var. max. 
CrratoenatHus HetortorpeEs, 9, Thoms. Cat. p. 434. 
“This species is the last of those described by Mr. Thomson in his ‘ Catalogue, 
and, as I suggested in my former remarks, proves to be identical with the insect de- 
scribed and figured by Professor Westwood under the name of Sinodendron? areola- 
tum, 2 (vide Tr. Ent. Soc. 3rd ser. vol. i. p. 430). The general appearance of this 
species is, as notified by Prof. Westwood, far more in accordance with the genus 
Sinodendron than with Ceratognathus, but, as the male is at present unknown 
(although Mr. Thomson appears inadvertently to have described it), it must still 
remain a matter of doubt to what genus it ought to be referred. Professor Westwood, 
in a note at the end of his paper (lid. cit. p. 437), suggests that, in the event of the 
two species proving identical, the unintelligible nomenclature and description of Mr. 
Thomson ought to prevent the retention of the name he has given: although partially 
agreeing in this respect, the point is fairly open to discussion, and I should be glad to 
hear Members express their opinions upon it.” 
