of the Group Ccrambycina3. 249 



The genus may be distinguished from Taurotaqus by the 

 length and obliquity of the mandibles in the male and tiie 

 tubercle with which they are each furnished externally near 

 the base. The legs, too, are more elongate and not so robust 

 as in Taxirotagus. Laeordaire gives as a further difference 

 that the prosternal process in Taurotagus is truncate and 

 vertical behind, in Coelodon strongly arched. But in no 

 species of Taurotagus that I have seen can the prosternal 

 process be strictly said to be truncate behind. In some of 

 the specimens of Taurotagus hrevipennis (recently described 

 by me in the ' Transactions of the Entomological Society ') 

 the prosternal process approaches this condition ; but in others 

 it is merely very strongly arched, and appears somewhat 

 vertical behind. The same is probably the case with Tauro- 

 tagus Klugii of Laeordaire. Specimens of Hammaticherus 

 Klugiij Dup., MS., from Natal, while answering in every 

 other respect to Lacordaire's description, disagree with it in 

 having the prosternal process strongly arched and not trun- 

 cate behind ; and in some specimens the prosternal process 

 bears a feeble median tubercle behind. The distinction there- 

 fore drawn from the form of the prosternum is of little or no 

 value. 



Neocerambyx, Thoms. 



Authors have not been in agreement as to the limits of this 

 genus, some restricting it to one or two species, others including 

 in it species that had been previously rejected and placed in 

 Fachi/dissus, the result being that in our present catalogues 

 we have closely allied species placed some in one genus and 

 some in the other, and even the same species occurring in both 

 genera under different names. To avoid this confusion, 

 which makes the determination of species more difficult, I 

 have brought together, under the generic name of yEoIesf/ieSj 

 most of .those species of Neocerambyx about the position of 

 which there was a doubt. 



The Cantori of Hope will be better placed in Ceramhyx^ 

 Serv., than in Neoceramhgx^ where Laeordaire thought it 

 should go. It has as a synonym C. scabricollis, Chcvr. 



Pachydissus gi'gas, Thoms., — the largest and one of the most 

 beautiful species of the whole group — seems to me to be best 

 placed in Neocerambyx. Unfortunately the male is still 

 unknown. From three female specimens (including the type) 

 1 am able to supplement the characters given by Thomson. 



Eyes rather wide apart above, with the vertex between 



