Mr. A. Murray on Coleoptera from Old Calabar. 315 
meeting in front, reminding one of the eyes of a bee, in this 
respect differing entirely from the typical Hylocetus, which has 
small, black, round eyes placed on the sides of the head and 
occupying a very small part of it. There is no ocellus on the 
front of the head. The epistome or front of the head differs in 
having a projection in the middle and one on each side, above 
the insertion of the antenne; in Hylocetus the front margin 
is quite straight. The back of the head is narrowed into a 
neck, which commences immediately behind the eyes. The 
thorax is longer than broad, and subparallel, instead of being 
broader than long. The first article of the tarsi is longer than 
in Hylocetus, being about as long as all the rest. Number of 
abdominal segments five; in the male there is a depression in 
the middle of the last segment, but none in the female. Coxze 
very long, conical, and projecting, those of the anterior legs 
being nearly as long as the thighs. It has the head of an 
Atractocerus, and the body and elytra of Hylocetus, but appears 
to me to have more affinity with the former than with the 
latter. 
The type of this genus is the Hylocetus brasiliensis of Cas- 
telnau. Lacordaire has already indicated that it must be sepa- 
rated from Hylocetus. Speaking of it and of H. cylindricus 
of Dejean (Cat. ed. 3. p. 128), he says:— Both having the 
enormous and strongly granulated eyes of the Atractoceri (they 
are contiguous on the front in the males, a little separated in 
the females), combined with the elongated thorax of Lymexylon, 
cannot remain among the Hyloceti. They manifestly form a 
genus intermediate between the latter and the <Atractoceri.” 
(Lacord. Gen. Col. iv. 503.) 
Although the facies is different from Lymexylon, the majority 
of the characters are the same. The most important difference 
_ is in the antenne, which in Lymeaylon are filiform, while in the 
present genus they are imbricated. 
I entirely agree with those who object to the multiplication 
of genera, and prefer, wherever it is possible, to make the neces- 
sary subdivisions in the form of subgenera, which may serve the 
purpose of the student of the particular family without over- 
burdening the general nomenclature. In this case, however, it 
would lead to a wrong appreciation of affinities were we to do 
so. Were we, on the strength of its facies, to make this form 
a subgenus of Hylocetus or Lymexylon, it would imply that it 
was nearer them than Afractocerus, and that the northern type 
of the family extended into Africa south of the Sahara, which, 
so far as we yet know, it does not; and to make it a subgenus 
of Atractocerus would be to treat with too little regard the 
abortive elytra of the latter. 
