BY WHICH THE VINE IS INFESTED. 195 



error of this estimable archgeologist is a slight one, since the Scara- 

 b(Eus Mimas is a Copris as well as the Midas of Egypt, Avhich it re^ 

 sembles even ahnost to its colours. There is therefore reason to think 

 that the Egyptian stone mentioned by M. MiUin represented the Copris 

 Midas which M. Savigny discovered in Egypt. 



The third species of Scarabasus employed, according to Pliny, as an 

 amulet against the effects of the quartan ague, was named the Fuller 

 (JFullo). This insect was spotted with white ; and the mode of em- 

 ploying it was to divide it into two portions, one of which was affixed 

 to each arm, while the two other species of insects of which we have 

 treated were attached only to the left arm. " Tertium, qui vocatur 

 Fullo, albis giittis, dissectimi utrique lacerto adligant, ccetera sinistro" 

 All Pliny's commentators are silent upon this remai-kable passage, and 

 upon the insect named Fullo by the Romans ; but naturalists have not 

 been equally careless. MouflFet, whose work appeared after his death 

 in \6S^, describing the largest species of Chafer of our climates, 

 which is nearly an inch and a half in length, and is distinguished with 

 facility by the brilliant white spots upon its corselet and elytra, com- 

 bats the opinion of those who consider the Fullo of Pliny as a Copris 

 or a Forficula, and supposes that by this name the Roman naturalist 

 intended to denote the large species of Chafer with white spots which 

 he (Mouffet) had just described*. Ray, whose History of Insects was 

 published in 1710, is of the same opinionf ; and lastly, M. Schoenlierr, 

 in his laborious work specially devoted to the synonymy of insects, cites 

 Pliny for his Melolontha Fullo %. 



It is with regret that I contest an opinion apparently so well esta- 

 blished by the suffrages of so many eminent naturalists ; but my own 

 observations are opposed to it. I have examined a great number of 

 antique stones upon which insects were sculptured or engraved, some 

 of which have perhaps been used as amulets, for they were pierced in 

 a manner adapted for suspension at the neck, and they all represented 

 either Coprophagi or Cetonice §. Not one of them can belong to a 

 species of Chafer, which may be easily distinguished from the in- 

 sects previously mentioned by a more lengthened form. The fact is 

 the same with regard to the obelisks, and all the monuments of Egypt 

 of which drawings have been published. I here speak only of the 

 Scarabsei or Coleoptera, and not of the species of Bee or Wasp sculp- 

 tured upon the obelisks at Luxor||. M.Latreille, who has been engaged 

 in a similar examination, has arrived at the same conclusion. 



• Mouffet, Insect., sive minimorum /Inimalium Theatruvi, 1634, folio, p. 160. 

 t J. Ray, Hist. Insect., 1710, 4to, p. 93. 



X C. J. Schoenherr, Synonymia Insect., part iii. Upsalia, 1817, 8vo, p. 164. 

 § There are Coprides, but no Cetonia: among the Scarabrei at the Biblio- 

 theque du Roi, but I have seen many of the latter in several other collections. 

 II [What insect was really intended to be represented by the sculptures here 



