﻿394 
  Mr. 
  G. 
  J. 
  Arrow 
  on 
  Lamellicorn 
  Beetles. 
  

  

  placed 
  in 
  the 
  genus 
  Athyreus 
  in 
  the 
  Munich 
  Catalogue. 
  I 
  

   have 
  been 
  able 
  to 
  compare 
  the 
  two 
  type3 
  by 
  the 
  kindness 
  of 
  

   Dr. 
  Adam 
  Boving, 
  of 
  the 
  Copenhagen 
  Museum. 
  

  

  Orphninje. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  found 
  it 
  necessary 
  to 
  change 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  Hybalus 
  

   gazella, 
  Raffray, 
  to 
  FT. 
  raffrayi, 
  the 
  name 
  gazella 
  having 
  

   been 
  applied 
  by 
  Mulsant 
  as 
  long 
  ago 
  as 
  1842 
  to 
  a 
  variety 
  of 
  

   //. 
  dorcas, 
  F. 
  ( 
  = 
  H 
  . 
  glabratus 
  , 
  F.). 
  

  

  Mr. 
  H. 
  Maxwell 
  Lefroy 
  has 
  sent 
  me 
  specimens 
  from 
  the 
  

   Punjab 
  of 
  a 
  very 
  remarkable 
  little 
  beetle 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  recog- 
  

   nized 
  as 
  belonging 
  to 
  the 
  genus 
  Dynamopus 
  of 
  Semenovv, 
  

   and 
  apparently 
  to 
  the 
  same 
  species 
  as 
  that 
  described 
  by 
  him 
  

   from 
  Turkestan 
  (Dynamopus 
  athleta, 
  Sem.). 
  The 
  author, 
  

   however, 
  has 
  not 
  correctly 
  described 
  the 
  structure 
  of 
  the 
  head 
  

   and 
  mouth-parts, 
  having 
  evidently 
  not 
  dissected 
  the 
  latter. 
  

   The 
  mandibles 
  are 
  not, 
  as 
  he 
  supposed, 
  concealed, 
  but 
  very 
  

   prominent, 
  as 
  in 
  the 
  whole 
  of 
  the 
  beetles 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  group 
  

   of 
  subfamilies 
  ; 
  but, 
  quite 
  unlike 
  any 
  other 
  beetle 
  known 
  to 
  

   me, 
  Dynamopus 
  has 
  the 
  mandibles 
  firmly 
  consolidated 
  with 
  

   the 
  sides 
  of 
  the 
  head, 
  where 
  they 
  form 
  the 
  lateral 
  processes 
  

   described 
  by 
  Semenow. 
  So 
  extraordinary 
  is 
  this 
  fixation 
  

   that 
  without 
  dissection 
  it 
  was 
  an 
  almost 
  inevitable 
  assumption 
  

   that 
  these 
  processes 
  were 
  mere 
  outgrowths 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  true 
  

   mandibles 
  were 
  hidden 
  within 
  the 
  mouth 
  ; 
  but, 
  having 
  care- 
  

   fully 
  removed 
  all 
  the 
  mouth-appendages 
  from 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  

   two 
  specimens 
  sent 
  to 
  me, 
  this 
  is 
  conclusively 
  disproved. 
  

   The 
  fixed 
  mandibles 
  have 
  a 
  slight 
  upward 
  curvature 
  and 
  

   are 
  blunt 
  and 
  without 
  teeth. 
  Although 
  their 
  original 
  func- 
  

   tion 
  is 
  obviously 
  lost, 
  it 
  must 
  be 
  supposed 
  that 
  they 
  have 
  

   acquired 
  some 
  other 
  use, 
  for 
  they 
  appear 
  to 
  have 
  undergone 
  

   no 
  diminution. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  transferred 
  the 
  genus 
  to 
  the 
  Orphninse, 
  to 
  which 
  its 
  

   characters 
  point 
  rather 
  than 
  to 
  the 
  Hybosorinse. 
  The 
  maxillse 
  

   are 
  very 
  well 
  developed, 
  with 
  a 
  long 
  but 
  not 
  corneous 
  outer 
  

   lobe, 
  and 
  the 
  inner 
  lobe 
  highly 
  chitinized 
  and 
  armed 
  with 
  

   very 
  strong 
  and 
  sharp 
  teeth. 
  The 
  labium 
  is 
  soft, 
  with 
  a 
  

   bilobed 
  ligula; 
  the 
  labium 
  rather 
  fleshy, 
  prominent, 
  bilobed, 
  

   and 
  studded 
  with 
  very 
  strong 
  bristles. 
  The 
  antennal 
  club 
  is 
  

   not 
  telescopic, 
  as 
  in 
  the 
  Hybosorinse, 
  but 
  there 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  

   no 
  coxal 
  stridulating-organ, 
  a 
  feature 
  of 
  most 
  of 
  the 
  Orphninse. 
  

   The 
  remarkable 
  fimbriate 
  spurs 
  of 
  the 
  middle 
  and 
  hind 
  tibia? 
  

   seem 
  to 
  indicate 
  a 
  relationship 
  with 
  the 
  Ochodseinas, 
  in 
  which 
  

  

  