506 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on the 
3. Stenommatus {nov. gen.). — The very interesting 
little insect on which I have founded the present genus is 
from Mexico, and has been communicated by JNIr. Fry. 
While possessing all the essential features of the Di-yoph- 
thorides (as instanced by its 4-jointed fiinicidus, elliptical 
body, transverse eyes, obsolete scutellum, conspicuously 
5-articulated feet, and minute claws), it recedes completely 
from Dryophthorus proper (and, therefore, a fortiori, from 
Tetratemnus) in several most important particulars, — r 
especially however in its considerably longer, slenderer, 
more parallel and arcuated rostrum ; in its very much nar- 
rower and more transverse eyes (which are so narrowed, 
and prolonged, beneath the head, as to be nearly con- 
fluent) ; and in all its coxfe, though jDarticularly the four 
posterior ones, being more widely separated. In other 
respects it differs from Dryophthorus in its smaller size 
and still more elliptic outline, which is a good deal at- 
tenuated at its hinder apex ; in its surface (instead of 
being unequally besmeared with a kind of coarse, mud- 
like, scaly deposit) being densely and evenly covered with 
an exti'cmely fine, velvety, somewhat silken, cinereous 
pubescence ; in its elytra not being cariniform at their 
extremity, though with their second costa (or raised costi- 
form interstice) more conspicuously elevated, or prominent, 
behind; in its antennae (particidarly as regards the scape) 
being longer, and with the club more developed ; and in 
its metastemum being a little shorter. 
4. Drtophthoeus ( Schonherr, Cure. Disp. Meth. 
332. 1826). — Although I have had no opportunity of 
examining them, I believe that the majority of the species 
which have been referred to Dryophthorus are generically 
distinct from the European D. lymexylon, which is ex- 
pressly stated to be the type of the group ; and I suspect 
therefore that the genus Tetratemnus, vf\\ic\\ I lately enun- 
ciated in order to receive an insect which was taken abun- 
dantly by Mr. G. Lewis in Japan, will be found eventually 
to embrace them. Be this hoAvever as it may, the genus 
Dryophthorus, as represented by its acknowledged type, 
is too well known to require comment ; siiffice it to observe 
that the various published diagnoses of it (not even ex- 
cepting that of Lacordaire) appear to me to be at fault in 
their definition of some of its most important characters, — 
the result apparently of their having been drawn out, not 
from the type alone, but partially also from some of the 
