138 Mr. G. J. Arrow on LameUicom Beetles 



no support to Burmeister's not very confidently expressed 

 opinion. Dark and light females are found together and 

 the difiPerences in the legs of the male are those of develop- 

 ment only. 



The type of Hope's Golofa porteri is another of those 

 unfortunately lost. It was described from the United 

 Service Museum, the insects contained in which are believed 

 to have been sold, but I have failed to obtain any clue to 

 them. It seems to be undoubtedly the same as Assei'achr 

 liewitsoni, Empson, of which the type is in the British 

 Museum. 



Golofa incas, Hope, was referred by Bates, although not 

 confidently, to G. impei'ialia, Thoms. Hope's types, again, 

 cannot be*^ traced, but his description of the male applies 

 only to that of G. championi, Bates, while that of the female 

 (so-called) sufficiently describes certain males of low develop- 

 ment of the same species. The armed head and the color- 

 ation described both point to the male instead of the female, 

 and in G. championi a longitudinal banding, such as Hope 

 describes, is sometimes seen. Moreover, the short acute 

 thoracic horn is the most characteristic feature of this 

 species. It has not been recorded from Mexico, but 

 " Habitat in agris ]\Iexicanis " is scarcely too precise to 

 exclude Guatemala. 



The males of Golofa have, as a general rule, three teeth 

 to the front tibia, while the females have four. Thomson's 

 genus Mixigenusy which, like Dr. Ohaus, I cannot agree with 

 H. W. Bates in uniting with Podischnus, differs from Golofa 

 only by the presence of the four-toothed tibiae in both sexes, 

 the absence of stridulatory files upon the propygidium, and 

 the less narrowed clypeus. A species here described {G. argen- 

 tina), while it has four teeth to the front tibia in both male 

 and female, as m Mixigenus, has also the stridulatory files 

 of Golofa, while the clypeus is intermediate in its form. 

 The appearance of the prothoracic protuberance of the 

 male cannot serve for generic separation, since it is found in 

 every degree of development in different species of Golofa. 

 It seems to me impossible therefore to regard Mixigenus as 

 more than a subgenus of Golofa. 



Golofa antiqua, sp. n. 



S . Obscure rufa, capite, cornubus suturaque nigris, corpore rarius 

 partim aut toto iiigro ; capite, thoracis coruu subtus, pygidii 

 basi corporeque subtus flavo-pubeecentibus ; capitis cornu gracili, 

 reci;rvato, acuto, postice crebre minute tuberculalo ; prothorace 



