Mr. T. V. Wollaston on Additions to Madeiran Coleoptera. 105 



The intermediate antennal joints, indeed (i. e. those between 

 the second and the club), of this insect are very peculiar, and 

 quite unlike (in their proportions) those of any other genus of 

 the Corylophidce with which I am acquainted. In fact, although 

 the whole of them are in reality minute, they may be described 

 as alternately large and small. The 1st, 3rd, and 5th, however 

 (which belong to the larger set), gradually increase in size, — the 

 1st being obliquely scooped out towards its base internally, the 

 third thick and blunt on its inner side, but narrower externally, 

 and the 5th altogether much larger and thicker, being some- 

 what squarish-transverse, and very obtuse internally. The 2nd, 

 4th, and 6th (which constitute the smaller series) are, on the other 

 hand, very diminutive, and also considerably narrower than the 

 above-mentioned alternate three ; nevertheless even they increase 

 a little in dimensions, since the 2nd is so thin (or short) as to be 

 scarcely traceable, whilst the 4th is more evident, and the 6th 

 (although extremely minute) comparatively large. In the two 

 greatly enlarged basal articulations, and the three which form 

 the club, Microstagetus is coincident with the other known 

 members of the Corylophidce. 



Up to the present date, therefore, we have eight genera which 

 have already been made known in this small but interesting 

 family, namely, Sacium ( = Clypeaster, oX\m), Moronillus, and Mi- 

 crostagetus, in which the antennae are composed of eleven joints ; 

 Arthrolips, Sericoderus, and Gkeosoma, in which the number of 

 these articulations is reduced to ten ; and Corylophus and Ortho- 

 perus, in which it is only nine. 



unique example of my G. velox, they certainly did not appear to me to be 

 absolutely identical ; so that the recorded dissimilarity in the structure of 

 their respective antenna? (not merely of the actual number of the joints, 

 but also of the relative projjortions of the latter inter se) should at least 

 cause us to hesitate before concluding that the Madeiran and French in- 

 sects are positively coincident. Yet, in spite of these important discrepan- 

 cies (discrepancies at any rate as yet on record, whether in reality true or 

 false), M. Duval, without even alluding to them, identities Gloeosoma with 

 Moronillus, and refers to my details of the oral organs of the former in 

 order to till up his diagnosis of the latter. And, moreover, even assuming 

 these two genera to be identical, it is at least a question whether M. Duval's 

 name or mine has the priority, since they were both published in the same 

 year, — mine, too, accompanied by a figure (both of the insect and dissec- 

 tions), and his without it. I may just add that, in my paper on " Madeiran 

 Additions," given in the ' Annals of Natural History ' for last year, I acted 

 (without going further into the question) on the hypothesis that M. Duval 

 was of course correct in his conclusion about Gloeosoma, and consequently 

 made, amongst others, the following observation : " for Glaosoma velox, 

 Woll., read Moronillus ruficollis, Jacq. -Duval." But, after what has been 

 said above, I need scarcely add that 1 must retract this remark in toto, — 

 at least until further evidence shall settle the question, first as to coincidence 

 of the two genera, and secondly as to their relative priority. 



