288 Oil 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 referred to in the table of genera is ^^MilariSj 

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

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

 only proposed for gigas, Linn.) ; the species i&maximaj Germ., 

 a close ally of giga^, L,, Fabr, 



2. DerileSj Mots., for Upis excavatus, Hbst., Brazil, an un- 

 described species. With this are associated and imperfectly 

 described, collaris (Murray, MS.), guineensis (Westermann, 

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

 allies of AmenopJn's, Thomson, 1858. A species ^''hypocritaj 

 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, Mede.ris^ Mots., for Upis angulata, Er., = PrometMsj 

 Pascoe, 1869, for the same insect. 



. 4. Asiris, Mots., angulicollis, Mots. This is certainly 

 3feneristes, Pascoe, 1869. I cannot say to which species 

 angulicollis is to be referred. 



5. Nyetohates, Guer,-M,, for sinuatus, Fabr., and allies. 

 Guerin-M^neville says distinctly that the type of his genus 

 is gigas, Fabr. (See above, Mylaris.) The name Nyctohates 

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

 name Taraxides. 



6. AlohateSj Mots,, for Nyct, pennsylvanica, De G. 



7. TienohateSj Mots,, for N.saperdoides^ 0\iy. y—Xylopinus^ 

 Le C, 1866, for the same insect. 



8. MenechideSj Mots,, for N. calcaratus, F., = Centronopus^ 

 Sol. 1848, for the same insect. 



9. LohetaSj Mots., for ZopJiobas costatus^ Gru^rin, — Htpalmus, 

 Bates, 1870, for the same insect. 



10. Pedit-is, Mots., longipes, Mots. This I think must be 

 Nyctohates sidcigera, Boisd, The only difficulty in the recon- 

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

 section in which the mesosternum is excavated, a character 

 not existing in sulcigera ; but as Iplithimus 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 ^^Set. 

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

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



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



13. Notiolesthus, Mots., tyyenatalensis, Mots., but including 

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



