Mr. A. Murray on Coleoptera from Old Calabar. 315 



meeting in front, reminding one of the eyes of a bee, in this 

 respect differing entirely from the typical Hyluccetus, which has 

 small, black, round eyes placed on the sides of the head and 

 occupying a very small part of it. There is no ocellus on the 

 front of the head. The epistome or front of the head differs in 

 having a projection in the middle and one on each side, above 

 the insertion of the antennse ; in Hyluccetus the front margin 

 is quite straight. The back of the head is narrowed into a 

 neck, which commences immediately behind the eyes. The 

 thorax is longer than broad, and subparallel, instead of being 

 broader than long. The first article of the tarsi is longer than 

 in Hylocwtus, being about as long as all the rest. Number of 

 abdominal segments five ; in the male there is a depression in 

 the middle of the last segment, but none in the female. Coxa 

 very long, conical, and projecting, those of the anterior legs 

 being nearly as long as the thighs. It has the head of an 

 Atraducerus, and the body and elytra o^ Hylocoetus, but appears 

 to me to have more affinity with the former than with the 

 latter. 



The type of this genus is the Hylocostus brasiliensis of Cas- 

 telnau. Lacordaire has already indicated that it must be sepa- 

 rated from Hylocoetus. Speaking of it and of H. cylindricus 

 of Dejean (Cat. ed. 3. p. 128), he says: — "Both having the 

 enormous and strongly granulated eyes of the Atradoceri (they 

 are contiguous on the front in the males, a little separated in 

 the females), combined with the elongated thorax of Lymexylon, 

 cannot remain among the Hylocoeti. They manifestly form a 

 genus intermediate between the latter and the AtradoceriJ' 

 (Laeord. Gen. Col. iv. 503.) 



Although the facies is different from Lymexylon, the majority 

 of the characters are the same. The most important difference 

 is in the antennae, which in Lymexylon are filiform, while in the 

 present genus they are imbricated. 



I entirely agree with those who object to the multiplication 

 of genera, and prefei', wherever it is possible, to make the neces- 

 sary subdivisions in the form of subgenera, which may serve the 

 purpose of the student of the particular family without over- 

 burdening the general nomenclature. In this case, however, it 

 would lead to a wrong appreciation of affinities were we to do 

 so. Were we, on the strength of its facies, to make this form 

 a subgenus of Hylocoetus or Lymexylon, it would imply that it 

 was nearer them than Atractocerus, and that the northern type 

 of the family extended into Africa south of the Sahara, which, 

 so far as we yet know, it does not ; and to make it a subgenus 

 of Atractocerus would be to treat with too little regard tlie 

 abortive elytra of the latter. 



