Coleopterous Genera Horia and Cissites. 201 



further, Horia maculata is definitely stated there to be the 

 type of the genus Cissites. 



It is interesting to note that although Lacordaire, in his 

 'Genera,' and Gemminger and Harold, in their ' Catalogue,' 

 wrongly construe the genera, the single reference in each 

 case is to one o£ those works of Latreille in which the genera 

 are correctly characterized. 



But it is not alone in reference to the interpretation of the 

 genera that mistakes have occurred. There is scarcely a 

 single one of the older species, and not many, I fear, amongst 

 those more recently described, with which some mistake is 

 not associated. 



To begin with : the Horia testacea, Fab., type of the genus 

 Horia, is not the species Fabricius thought it was, viz. the 

 Lymexylon testaceum, Fab., of an earlier work, and will there- 

 fore require a new name if one cannot be found for it 

 amongst those since published, which is not improbable. 

 It may possibly be the species described by Fairmaire as 

 Cissites debyi ; it was clearly, I think, the latter species that 

 Aurivillius took to be testacea, Fab., and which he differen- 

 tiated as such when describing his own species africanus. 

 There is, however, another species equally as common as 

 debyi, if not more common, in South India, and to this other 

 species, regarded by some authors as the true Horia testacea 

 of Fabricius, the characters given for africanus apply. In 

 the uncertainty therefore as to what species the type of the 

 genus Horia really is, we must continue to call that type 

 Horia testacea, Fab. Fabricius specified no collection as 

 containing his type specimens. Cucujus clavipes, Fab., given 

 as a synonym by Fabricius, has nothing to do with it. 



The type specimen (a female) of Lymexylon testaceum, 

 Fab. (1781), is preserved in the Banksian cabinet of the 

 British Museum. It belongs to the genus Cissites, Latr., and 

 is without doubt an African species. 



Horia cephalotes, Oliv., stated by its author to have come 

 from S. America, and later placed by Fabricius as a synonym 

 of his maxillosa from the E. Indies, has since been shown by 

 Gerstaecker to be an African species quite distinct from 

 maxillosa. Described from a male, it is probably identical 

 with Cissites testacea, Fab. 



Horia se?ieyulensis, Casteln. — With regard to this species, 

 I have come independently to the same conclusion as De Borre 

 (1883), that it was made up of two distinct species, that 

 the so-described male was in reality the female of a species 

 belonging to the true Cissites, Latr., and that the female 

 belonged to a species of Horia scarcely, if at all, distinguish- 

 Ann. & May. N. Hist. Ser. 8. Vol. ii. 14 



