66 Mr. F. P. Pascoe on new Genera 
remain even in the same subfamily. There are, however, in 
my opinion cases, as in this, in which a character becomes 
almost purely arbitrary: in the species before us the ex- 
ceptional characters are sufficiently recognized by generic 
distinction *. 
Ceroplesis sumptuosa. 
C. oblonga, nigra, supra pube tenuissima alba parce adspersa, infra 
nitida, pilis brevibus volitantibus induta; capite inter oculos pro- 
funde sulcato, tuberibus antenniferis alte elevatis ; antennis ( ¢) 
corpore sesquilongioribus, (9) parum longioribus ; prothorace 
transverse tumido, utrinque in mare subbituberculato, punctis 
paucis irregulariter adsperso, tomento brunneo-miniato dense 
teeto; scutello valde transverso, postice rotundato; elytris pro- 
thorace plus triplo longioribus, bronzino-nigris, basi rugoso- 
punctatis, postice punctis sensim minoribus et minus confertis, 
fasciis duabus determinatis integris invicem atque a basi eequaliter 
distantibus, margineque apicali roseo-miniatis ornatis ; tibiis an- 
ticis (¢ ) longiusculis, apice parum arcuatis. Long. 14-15 lin. 
Hab. Cape (Grahamstown). 
From C. tricincta, Ol., the nearest ally, this handsome 
species differs in the diverging antennary tubers, the trans- 
verse bulging of the middle of the prothorax, which is covered 
with a dense maroon or claret-coloured tomentum, the glossy 
bronze (almost golden) hue of the elytra, except the pinkish 
or dark rosy bands, and the anterior tibize of the males longer 
and less curved. C. marginalis, Fahr., seems to me scarcely 
distinguishable from C. ferrugator, Fab. I have recently 
received C. bicincta from Angola, hitherto only recorded from 
the Cape. 
Ceroplesis aulica. 
C. nigra, subtus prothoraceque sparse griseo-pubescentibus ; capite 
pilis griseis sparsis induto, tuberibus antenniferis divergentibus, 
* The Munich Catalogue erroneously makes Thysia tricincta, Cast., 
synonymous with 7. Wallichi, Hope. The errors in this most useful 
and extensive work (it already reaches to 3478 pages) seem to be fewer 
than could reasonably have been anticipated; but the authors in some 
cases seem to have wilfully gone out of their way to create mistakes, as, 
for instance, in referring Pascoéa Ide to Tmesisternus mirabilis, Anthores 
leuconota to Monohammus asperula, &e. The great defect of the work is 
the restoration of names that have been dropped in consequence of their 
being preoccupied elsewhere. Dr. Gemminger and the Baron de Harold 
have adopted a very narrow rule. So long as names have not been used 
for a Coleopterous genus, it matters not that they have been used in other 
orders of insects; but on this principle, carrying it a step further, the 
specialist in Carabide, for example, would be justified in taking the 
names of any other family of Coleoptera, and the same generic name 
might be used in every family of the animal kingdom. 
