﻿138 
  Mr. 
  G. 
  J. 
  Arrow 
  on 
  Lamelltcom 
  Beetles 
  

  

  no 
  support 
  to 
  Burmeister's 
  not 
  very 
  confidently 
  expressed 
  

   opinion. 
  Dark 
  and 
  light 
  females 
  are 
  found 
  together 
  and 
  

   the 
  differences 
  in 
  the 
  legs 
  of 
  the 
  male 
  are 
  those 
  of 
  develop- 
  

   ment 
  only. 
  

  

  The 
  type 
  of 
  Hope's 
  Golofa 
  porteri 
  is 
  another 
  of 
  those 
  

   unfortunately 
  lost. 
  It 
  was 
  described 
  from 
  the 
  United 
  

   Service 
  Museum, 
  the 
  insects 
  contained 
  in 
  which 
  are 
  believed 
  

   to 
  have 
  been 
  sold, 
  but 
  I 
  have 
  failed 
  to 
  obtain 
  any 
  clue 
  to 
  

   them. 
  It 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  undoubtedly 
  the 
  same 
  as 
  Asserador 
  

   hewitsoni, 
  Empson, 
  of 
  which 
  the 
  type 
  is 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  

   Museum. 
  

  

  Golofa 
  inc 
  as, 
  Hope, 
  was 
  referred 
  by 
  Bates, 
  although 
  not 
  

   confidently, 
  to 
  G. 
  impericdis, 
  Thorns. 
  Hope's 
  types, 
  again, 
  

   cannot 
  be 
  traced, 
  but 
  his 
  description 
  of 
  the 
  male 
  applies 
  

   only 
  to 
  that 
  of 
  G. 
  championi, 
  Bates, 
  while 
  that 
  of 
  the 
  female 
  

   (so-called) 
  sufficiently 
  describes 
  certain 
  males 
  of 
  low 
  develop- 
  

   ment 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  species. 
  The 
  armed 
  head 
  and 
  the 
  color- 
  

   ation 
  described 
  both 
  point 
  to 
  the 
  male 
  instead 
  of 
  the 
  female, 
  

   and 
  in 
  G. 
  championi 
  a 
  longitudinal 
  banding, 
  such 
  as 
  Hope 
  

   describes, 
  is 
  sometimes 
  seen. 
  Moreover, 
  the 
  short 
  acute 
  

   thoracic 
  horn 
  is 
  the 
  most 
  characteristic 
  feature 
  of 
  this 
  

   species. 
  It 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  recorded 
  from 
  Mexico, 
  but 
  

   " 
  Habitat 
  in 
  agris 
  Mexicanis 
  " 
  is 
  scarcely 
  too 
  precise 
  to 
  

   exclude 
  Guatemala. 
  

  

  The 
  males 
  of 
  Golofa 
  have, 
  as 
  a 
  general 
  rule, 
  three 
  teeth 
  

   to 
  the 
  front 
  tibia, 
  while 
  the 
  females 
  have 
  four. 
  Thomson's 
  

   genus 
  Mixigenus, 
  which, 
  like 
  Dr. 
  Ohaus, 
  1 
  cannot 
  agree 
  with 
  

   H. 
  W. 
  Bates 
  in 
  uniting 
  with 
  Podischrms, 
  differs 
  from 
  Golofa 
  

   only 
  by 
  the 
  presence 
  of 
  the 
  four-toothed 
  tibiae 
  in 
  both 
  sexes, 
  

   the 
  absence 
  of 
  stridulatory 
  files 
  upon 
  the 
  propygidium, 
  and 
  

   the 
  less 
  narrowed 
  clypeus. 
  A 
  species 
  here 
  described 
  (G. 
  argen- 
  

   tina), 
  while 
  it 
  has 
  four 
  teeth 
  to 
  the 
  front 
  tibia 
  in 
  both 
  male 
  

   and 
  female, 
  as 
  in 
  Mixigenus, 
  has 
  also 
  the 
  stridulatory 
  files 
  

   of 
  Golofa, 
  while 
  the 
  clypeus 
  is 
  intermediate 
  in 
  its 
  form. 
  

   The 
  .appearance 
  of 
  the 
  prothoracic 
  protuberance 
  of 
  the 
  

   male 
  cannot 
  serve 
  for 
  generic 
  separation, 
  since 
  it 
  is 
  found 
  in 
  

   every 
  degree 
  of 
  development 
  in 
  different 
  species 
  of 
  Golofa. 
  

   It 
  seems 
  to 
  me 
  impossible 
  therefore 
  to 
  regard 
  Mixigenus 
  as 
  

   more 
  than 
  a 
  subgenus 
  of 
  Golofa. 
  

  

  Golofa 
  antiqua, 
  sp. 
  n. 
  

  

  J 
  . 
  Obscure 
  rufa, 
  capite, 
  cornubus 
  suturaque 
  nigris, 
  corpore 
  rarius 
  

   partim 
  aut 
  toto 
  nigro 
  ; 
  capite, 
  thoracis 
  cornu 
  subtus, 
  pygidii 
  

   basi 
  corporeque 
  subtus 
  flavo-pubescentibus 
  ; 
  capitis 
  cornu 
  gracili, 
  

   recurvato, 
  acuto, 
  postice 
  crebre 
  minute 
  tuberculato 
  ; 
  prothorace 
  

  

  