147 
Longicorn genera Zygocera and Hebesecis); the latter meaning 
that the dorsal border holds a direction more or less continuing 
the direction of the supposed longitudinal line. 
Among the genera that I have tabulated there are two re- 
garding the identification of which I feel that there is an element 
of doubt, and it seems necessary to indicate these genera and 
specify the reasons of the doubt in each case. The first is Xeda. 
I cannot say that I feel any genuine doubt about this, inasmuch 
as X. amplipennis, Pasc., is among the types lent me by Mr. 
Masters, and it agrees so perfectly with Mr. Pascoe’s specific 
description and with his generic diagnosis in respect of all charac- 
ters but one as to convince me that it is rightly named ; but, 
nevertheless, its claws are divergent, whereas Mr. Pascoe calls 
them divaricate. J am of opinion that Mr. Pascoe probably did 
not use these terms exactly in the technical sense of Lacordaire, 
but interpreted ‘“divaricate” as meaning “ very widely,” and 
“divergent” as meaning “less widely ” directed apart. In most 
cases this interpretation would lead to the same results as M. 
Lacordaire’s. Moreover, it is to be noticed that the claws are 
very easily forced into an unnatural condition in mounting, 
and that for confidence in deciding whether the claws of a 
specimen are divergent or divaricate it is necessary to be sure 
that they are not artificially displaced. The second genus which 
calls for remark is Cyttalia. The species that I have attributed 
to that genus depart from the characters specified by Mr. Pascoe 
in two respects : their femora are all dentate, whereas, according 
to the diagnosis, the hind femora only should be dentate; and 
their claws are divaricate, whereas they should be divergent. As 
regards the latter discrepancy, the remarks I have made above in 
respect of Xeda may perhaps apply here ; and in regard to the 
former discrepancy I do not regard the exact number of dentate 
femora.as important enough to be a generic character ; indeed, 
Mr. Pascoe himself, in the case of the Anthonomid genus Diapel- 
mus, does not hesitate to assign to it species that depart similarly 
from the characters assigned by its author. It is, I think, at any 
rate certain, that if the species I have called Cyttalia are not 
really congeneric with that on which the genus was founded, they 
cannot be referred to any other characterised genus, and therefore 
no great harm will result from their temporary location under a 
name that they are not really entitled to bear. The most 
remarkable character of Cyttalia I take to be the elongation of 
the antennal scape to the extent of its reaching back to the hind 
margin of the eye, and this character is present in the species I 
have assigned to the genus. 
It is desirable to take this opportunity of referring to those 
species that I have previously described regarding which I have 
