26 Mr. C. J. Gahan on new 



tlie anterior tarsi have a somewhat similar villositj on their 

 ] osterior border. The antenna;, not much shorter than the 

 l)odj, are flattened below and slightly convex above ; they 

 are strongly enough punctured, with the punctures on joints 

 three to seven chiefly confined to the lateral borders ; the last 

 four joints are somewhat villose underneath. The prosternal 

 process is slightly emarginate behind. 



Before seeirg the female, which is in Mr. Fry's collection, 

 I had placed this species in Solenoptera ; but as the female 

 has the sides of the prothorax nearly straight, with the ante- 

 rior angles laterally produced or toothed, the species seem.s 

 better jjlaced in Prosternodes. 



A distinct species from St. Domingo, to which Chevrolat 

 had given the manuscript name dovunicensis^ somewhat 

 resembles the preceding. The single male specimen in the 

 collection is in too bad a condition for detailed descrij)tion ; 

 but the chief points of difference may be mentioned : — Smaller 

 (length 20 millim.). Antenna relatively shorter, scarcely 

 reaching to the middle of the elytra. Lateral margins of the 

 prothorax less regularly crenulate. (Scutellum ?) Episterna 

 of metathorax and sides of the abdomen with a less dense 

 (jveyisU pubescence. j\Ietasternum without oblique fasciae. 



SOLENOPTEKA, ScrV. 



That Chevrolat did not fully appreciate the chief diflferences 

 between his genus Elateropsis and the genus Solenoptera of 

 Serville is shown by the fact that he included in the former a 

 true species of Solenojjtera, viz. S. sulcicollis, Thoms. The 

 scutellum in this species is as broad as it is long and some- 

 ^^ hat rounded behind. In the male the pronotum is finely 

 and very closely punctured towards the sides — a sexual cha- 

 racter to be met with in all the species of Solenoptera^ and, as 

 far as 1 know, not occurring in the genus Elateropsis. 



Lacordaire has passed unnoticed this sexual character, but 

 has pointed out the form of the scutellum as of considerable 

 in)|.ortance in distinguishing the two genera. 



Solcnojjtera hilineata^ Fabr. [Frionus), iSyst. Ent. p. 163, 

 has been omitted from Gcmminger and Harold's Catalogue. 

 The specimens of this species in the British Museum collec- 

 tion are ticketed Guadeloupe and ISanta Cruz. 



Solenojjtera suhcaiialiculafa, White, a})pears to be synony- 

 mous with >S'. canali'ciilata, Fabr. Fabiicius's description 

 applies exactly to the type of White's species. It is, how- 

 ever, probable tl.at authors have included more than one 

 variety under the labrician name. Olivier has figured and 



