288 On some Species of Heteromerous Coleoptera. 



many years ago, are now not a credit to him, and are a great 

 impediment to science. 



The first genus refen-ed to in the table of genera is " J/i7am, 

 Pallas," " Type Upis maxima^ Erm." This is evidently in- 

 tended for Mylaris (a genus not characterized by Pallas, and 

 only proposed for gignSj Linn.) ; the species is maxima, Germ., 

 a close ally of gigcis, L,, Fabr. 



2. Deriles, Mots., for Upi's excavatus, Hbsi., Brazil, an un- 

 described species. With this are associated and imperfectly 

 described, collaris (Mun'ay, MS.), guineensis (Westermann, 

 MS.), and hypocrita (Dej. MS.), which appear to be close 

 allies oi Amenophisj Thomson, 1858. A species ^^ hypocrita, 

 Dej.," was described in 1842 by Prof. Westwood ; but I think 

 it is different from the one described by Motschulsky, and is a 

 Taraxides (see below). 



3. Mederis, Mots., for JJpis angulata, Er., = Promethis, 

 Pascoe, 1869, for the same insect. 



4. Asii'is, Mots., anguIicoUisj Mots. This is certainly 

 Meneristes, Pascoe, 1869. I cannot say to which species 

 angidicollis is to be referred. 



5. Nyctobates, Gudr.-M., for stJiuatus, Fabr., and allies. 

 Guerin-Meneville says distinctly that the type of his genus 

 is gigaSj Fabr. (See above, Mylaris.) The name Nyctobates 

 cannot, therefore, be applied to sinuatus ; and I propose the 

 name Taraxides. 



6. Alobates, Mots., for Nycf. pemisyhanica, De G. 



7. TcenobafeSj Mots., for N.saperdoides, 0\\Y.,=XylopinuSy 

 Le C. 1866, for the same insect. 



8. Menec/iides, Mots., for N. calcarattis, F., = CentronopuSj 

 Sol. 1848, for the same insect. 



9. Lobetas, Mots., for Zophobas costatus, Gu6nn , = HipalmuSj 

 Bates, 1870, for the same insect. 



10. Fedirisj Mots., hngipes^ Mots. This I think must be 

 Nyctobates sidcigera, Boisd. The only difficulty in the recon- 

 ciliation of the two is in the fact that Pediris is placed in tlie 

 section in which the mesosternum is excavated, a character 

 not existing in sulcigera ; but as Iphtkimus is placed in the 

 same section, and also wants this excavated mesosternum, 

 perhaps it is altogether a mistake. 



11. Setenis, Mots., for N. valgus, Wiedem. Two of the 

 new species described in this genus are compared to ^^8et. 

 unicolor, Hbst.," which is, I believe, an undescribed species ; 

 another, " impressa, Mots.," appears to be imp>ressa, Fab. 



12. Pliopliobas, Mots., will stand as a good genus. 



13. Notiolesthus,M-OiQ.,iy\^e.natalensis, Mots., but including 

 Upis rotundicollis (Esch.), Casteln. 1840 (PhiHppine Islands). 



